- (1.) : The Deity Sri Iswar basanti Durga Debi (hereinafter referred to as the said Deity), is represented through her shebait. Sri Siddhewar panda. The said Deity has claimed to have owned and possessed 27. 88 acres of agricultural lands, situated within non-irrigated areas. It has also been stated that the name of the said Deity was duly recorded in the record of rights, as prepared under the West bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the said 1953 Act ). The said Deity has further stated to have retained, lands upto the prescribed ceiling under the said 1953 Act.
(2.) IT is the case of the said Deity that in 1953, enquiries were held with regard to the entry and Debuttar character of the properties, by the Revenue officer concerned, for ascertaining whether the said Debuttor or the properties of the same, were absolute Debuttor and were used for religious purposes and after necessary enquiries, the answer was in the affirmative.
(3.) THE said' Deity has further stated to have filed a return in Form 7a of the west Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said 1955 act), as she did not possess lands more than the prescribed ceiling retaining 27. G8 acres of lands. On the basis of the said return, the Revenue officer conceined issued a notice and directed the petitioner to produce the relevant records, for determining the ceiling. It has been alleged that the said officer, upon misinterpretation of the provisions of the said 1955 Act. passed illegally, an order. vesting the Debutter properties, holding infer alia amongst others, that the usufructs of the properties, were not at all spent or used for the benefits of the public or for any charitable purposes and the public were not interested in the management of the same and as result of such finding, the properties of the said Debuttar were considered as the properties of the Shebait, in calculating his ceiling limit. It has also been contended that the officer concerned applied wrong tests and acted illegally and with material irregularities, in calculating the members of the family, apart from the fact that the said officer was also wrong in holding that the said deity was not in possesssion of the lands in question. It has also been claimed that the officer concerned misinterpreted the provisions of sub section (5) of section 14m, which provides that the lands owned by a trust of endowment deemed to be lands owned by the beneficiaries under the trust or endowment and each such beneficiary shall be deemed to a raiyat under this Act to the extent of the share of his beneficial interest in the said trust or endowment. It has also, been claimed that the officer concerned was wrong in holding that the Shebait of the said Deity was a raiyat in respect of the concerned Debuttor properties. It has also been claimed that the beneficiary viz the said Deity in this case and not the Shebait, should have been treated as a Raiyat, in the mutter of determining the ceiling limit and calculation on any basis, other than us mentioned above, was wrong and improper. It was the specific submissions that under the provisions of the said 1955 Act, each beneficiary i. e. the said deity in this case, should have been treated as a Raiyat and as such, she was entitled to hold and retain properties of her own and upto her separate ceiling limit and that too in terms of the endowment. As such, it has also and further been claimed that the act or action of the officer concerned in vesting all the properties of the said Deity and also those of the petitioner as one which he retained as his own, was illegal, void malafide, arbitrary and bad, apart from being in violation of the provisions of section 14m (5 ).;