- (1.) The two Civil Rule Nos. being 3756 (W) of 1969 and 3332 (W) of 1968, were heard and disposed of together by Anil Kumar Sen, J. on 10th February 1972. Those two Rules, which were obtained by the respective petitioners, disputing the validity of certain orders passed in proceeding under section 44(23) as also in proceeding under section 6, being B. R. Case No. 101 of 1961, were so heard an analogously, as the points involved in those Rules were thought to be the same. In fact, the learned Judge, while disposing of the appeals observed that the entire dispute rested on an issue as to whether the petitioners in those Rules were entitled to retain individually more than one unit of total agricultural and non agricultural lands permissible under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter be referred to as the said Act), or they were entitled together to retain one unit. F.M.A. No. 75 of 1972 has been preferred against the order made in Civil Rule No. 3756 (W) of 1969 and since in the said appeal, lauds at Murshidabad are involved, the same would hereinafter be referred to as the said Murshidabad appeal. The other appeal being F. M. A. No. 76 of 1972 has been preferred against the determinations in Civil Rule No. 3332 (W) of 1968 and the same relates to lands at Birbhum, as such, the said appeal would hereinafter be referred to as the said Birbhum Appeal. Petitioner/Appellant Nos. 1-4 in the said Murshidabad appeal have been claimed to be the sons of late Shew Prosanna Ram Bhakat and petitioner/appellant Nos. 5 and 6 therein, have been stated lobe the sons of the petitioner No. 1, Brahma Deo Prosad Bhakat. The petitioner/appellant Nos. 7 and 8 have also been stated to be the sons of petitioner No. 2, Parashuram Bhakat. Their predecessor-in-interest, late Shew Prosanna Ram Bhakat has also been stated to be the sou of Ramcharit Ram Bhakat, who died long ago and it was the case of the petitioner/appellants that they were governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu Law.
(2.) It has been stated that the said late Shew Prosanna Ram Bhakat and the petitioners, as members of a Mitakshara joint family, held lands in khas possession and those lands have also been stated to be situated in the districts of Birbhum and Murshidabad. The petitioners have also stated to be the coparceners on the vesting of their estates under the said Act. It has also been stated by them that the lands as indicated above, were the only lands held by them on the date of vesting, within the State of West Bengal.
(3.) In the said Murshidabad appeal it has also been stated, that by mistake the lands as above, were recorded in the record of right of the last revisional settlement in the name of two members of 1 the concerned joint family viz Shew Prosanna Ram Bhakat and Brahma Deo Bhakat. It has further been stated, that thereafter, B. R. Case Nos. 96 and 101 were initiated. The said case No. 96 was directed against Brahma Deo Bhakat and the other one was initiated against Shew Prosanna Ram Bhakat under section 6(5) read with section 6(1) of the said Act. Such initiation was made in the year 1961 by the Revenue Officer, Nalhati, Birbhum. It has been alleged that those cases were initiated on the allegations that the two persons as mentioned above, were the owners of all the lands and consequently they had no right to retain excess areas beyond the permissible ceiling under section 6(1) of the said Act and two ceilings were offered them separately. It would appear that those persons against whom the proceeding was initiated, appeared in the proceedings and claimed that all male members of the concerned Mitakshara family comprising with them and the said Shew Prosanna Ram Bhakat, were the owners of the lands in question and each one of them would be entitled to retain a separate ceiling and that the records as prepared, were erroneous, apart from claiming that the proceedings as initiated were misconceived.;