- (1.) THE petitioner feels aggrieved by an order made against him under section 5a (3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act as affirmed in appeal. The petitioner states that on October 10, 1950, he had taken a loan of Rs. 5000/- from his mother Sarimannessa, respondent No. 8, on a promissory note but failed to repay the same. Being hard pressed for repayment, but having no other means to repay, the petitioner decided to transfer to his mother 29. 89 acres of land, in five jotes, in satisfaction of the debt. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision, with which his mother had agreed, the petitioner executed a bainanama, dated January 7, 1953, agreeing to convey the aforesaid 29. 89 acres of land to his mother for a consideration of Rs. 6000/ -. After the bainanama was executed, his mother acknowledged repayment of Rs. 5900/- only and there was an agreement between the petitioner and his mother that she would pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 100/-within two years of the date of the agreement and would get a conveyance executed by the petitioner in her favour. Possession of the land, the petitioner alleges, was made over to his mother at the time of the bainanama but the conveyance was not effected until May 31, 1954.
(2.) THE petitioner contends that with the execution of the bainanama and the parting of possession of the land, the petitioner ceased to have any transferable interest therein and since all those things were effected before May 5, 1953, the transaction could not be affected by the provision of section 5a of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.
(3.) AT the time of the revision of the records of right, under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, an Attestation Officer recorded the name of the petitioner's mother in respect of one only out of the five jotes. On her filing objection, under section 44 (1) of the said Act, an Assistant Settlement Officer recorded two more jotes in her name. In respect of remaining two jotes, there was an enquiry under section 5a of the Act, directed by the State Government and two cases were started against the petitioner. The petitioner objected to the enquiry but his objections were overruled by the Assistant Settlement Officer, who disposed of the two cases with the following observations: "i do not understand why the Kabala in question was executed after 16 months from the date of execution of the "bynanama" In view of the above facts I do not think that this transfer took place on 7. 1. 53. Hence this transfer is considered to have been made on 31. 5. 54. But the other facts as stated by the transferor and transferee regarding the bonafide character of the transfer are believed. But as the transferor had transferred his excess land which the transferee retained u/s 6 (1) in exercising option in terms of the said section these transferred lands should be taken into the account of the transferor in calculating his certain retention prescribed under section 6 (1 ). ";