G.N. Ray, J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against and adjudication under section 14 of the Land Reforms Act made by the Revenue Officer, Bhatar, which appears in Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. The petitioners have challenged the correctness of the adjudication made under section 14 of the Land reforms Act by the Revenue Officer on two grounds, firstly that without determining the nature of debuttar under section 14M(4) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, the Revenue Officer has sought to include the debuttar land as personal land of the raiyat and has determined the ceiling accordingly. The petitioners have also challenged the correctness of the adjudication of the Revenue Officer so far as the extent of the irrigated and non-irrigated lands are concerned.
(2.) Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that unless a proper determination under section 14M(4) is made about the real nature of the debuttar, the ceiling land of a raiyat by taking the debuttar land cannot be made. In the instant case, such enquiry has not been made by the Revenue Officer and no finding about the nature of the debuttar has been made by the Revenue Officer. In my view, there is enough justification in the said contention of Mr. Mukherjee. Mr. Mukherjee has also contended that the petitioners have included certain lands as non-irrigated lands and on that basis have claimed retention of land. If the Revenue Officer does not admit such classification of the non-irrigated lands made by the petitioners in respect of some of the lands and intends to determine the ceiling on the basis that the said lands are irrigated lands, then he is under an obligation to get an adjudication under section 14N of the Land Reforms Act by the Competent Authority under the said section 14N. Mr. Mukherjee has contended that for raising a dispute about the real nature of a land, namely, whether the same is irrigated or non-irrigated, there is no provision either in the Land Reforms Act or in the Rules framed thereunder to make any formal application in a prescribed manner. On the contrary, section 14N envisages that if a question arises as to whether any land is or is not within an irrigated area, such question is required to be determined by the prescribed authority. Mr. Mukherjee has contended that in the facts of the case the Revenue Officer not having accepted' the classification made by the petitioners about non-irrigated lands, a dispute has arisen and it was the duty, of the Revenue Officer to get an adjudication under section 14N before finally disposing of the extent of the ceiling land under section 14T. In my view this contention of Mr. Mukherjee is also sound and should be accepted.
(3.) In the circumstances, the impugned 'adjudication made under section 14T is set aside and the Revenue Officer is directed to decide afresh the ceiling land of the petitioners under the provision of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act after getting an adjudication from the appropriate authority under section 14N of the Land Reforms Act by referring the dispute regarding the extent of irrigated and non-irrigated land of the petitioners and after deciding the nature of the debuttar under section 14M(4) of the Land Reforms Act. Needless to point out that the petitioners should be given an opportunity of hearing in the matter of any adjudication to be made under section 14M(4).;