Mukul Gopal Mukherjee, J. - (1.) The present writ application involves plot Nos. 211, 212, 213, 77/684, 339/112, 196, 369, 368, 427, 193, 77, 565, 64, 214, 588, 245, 277, 282, 1, 2, 32, 193/684, 195, 194, 193, 162 of Mouza Akrampur and these lands are all non-agricultural lands which initially belonged to one Bibi Achiya Khatoon. By a registered Kobala dated 5.1.1956 Bibi Achiya Khatoon sold several plots for valuable consideration to the petitioner and the respondent no. 6. By another registered kobala dated 2.4.1956 she sold about 11 plots to the petitioner. By a registered patta dated 29.3.1956 she sold 17 plots of land of Mouzs Akrampur to Satinath Banerjee, respondent no. 6. By another registered kobala dated 7.6.1954 plot no. 197 of Mouza Akrampur was sold by her to one Panchanan Raha who thereafter sold the said plot to Sati Nath Banerjee, respondent no. 6 by a register kobala dated 4.6.1966. Bibi Achiya Khatoon ultimately left for East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in January, 1964 and it is alleged that 13.9.1964 she died at the residence of her Son, Sk. Khairuddin Ahmed in the town of Khulna. In 1955 while she was in West Bengal, she submitted at the Settlement 'O' Camp at Habra P.S., a return Form B as prescribed by the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and the Rules, exercising her choice to retain certain lands is khas. By virtue of the choice that she exercised, several khanda khatians were opened by the Settlement Department and the plots that she was allowed to retain were recorded in the revisional record of rights. After their purchases the petitioner, respondent no. 6 and the father of the petitioner, Amulya Krishna Banerjee have been paying revenue to the State of West Bengal by virtue of their purchases and such revenue was realised by the Government Tashildars from the petitioner. It is contended that the lands retained by Bibi Achiya Khatoon was within the ceiling limit as prescribed by the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.
(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner in the first place that he and the respondent no. 6 by virtue of the mutation of their names in the record of rights and by virtue of the payment of revenue to the State of West Bengal, as direct tenants under the state were entitled to retain the lands purchased by them. That apart, it is the admitted case that there were several section 5A of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition proceedings against the said Bibi Achiya Khatoon in which she did not appear but where the transfers effected by her were found to be bonafide ones. This was in or around 1967. Despite sale effected by Bibi Achiya Khatoon in favour of third parties including the present petitioner and the respondent no. 6, the lands were allowed to be vested in toto, and/or led ultimately the petitioner's father Amulya Krishna Banerjee to taka an Article 226 proceedings before this Hon'ble Court, being Civil Rule 5760(w) of 1970, which ultimately stood dispose of on 26.6.74. The Rule stood disposed of on the following terms : (1) The order of vesting will be kept in abeyance and will not be given effect to for a period of six months from today. (2) Within two months from today the petitioner will be at liberty to file an objection to the order of vesting before the competent authority who will consider that objection and dispose of the same within three months thereafter giving notice to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner's objection in accordance with law. (3) If it is found that the lands in question are retainable under section 6 of the Act, the respondents will allow the petitioner to retain such lands. If, however, it is found that the petitioner is not entitled to retain such lands, the order of vesting will be given effect to and the lands will be vested to the State. (4) In case the petitioner does not file the objection as directed above within two months from today, the Rule will stand discharged without any order as to costs.
(3.) The petitioner thereafter filed his objection which was sought to be heard and disposed of by the Revenue Officer by his order as contained in Annexure E to the writ application. Amulya Krishna Banerjee, father of the present petitioner, while appearing before the said proceeding which was recorded as a proceeding under section 45A read with section 6 of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act in the light of the provisions of Section 5A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act contended, inter alia, that the petitioner and the respondent, no. 6 were his benamdars, being son and nephew respectively of the said Amulya Krishna Banerjee. The Revenue-Officer has no reason to disbelieve the said contention but for reasons inexplicable.be held inter alia, that Amulya Krishna Banerjee's claim regarding benumi purchase was not established in any court and hence there was no scope of retention of the land under section 6(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act by him. Following the same logic he held, inter alia, that as Amuiya Krishna Banerjee was not entitled to retain the land claimed in his petition, so the question of allowing him to retain the land coveted by the deeds did not arise. As regards the land which ultimately stood transferred in the name of Satinath Banerji by a registered kobala dated 4.6.1956 he held that as the transfers were made by Bibi Achiya Khatoon beyond the period of mischief i.e. after 5.5.1953, an enquiry was made in a separate proceeding under Sec. 5A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and the transfers were found to be bonafide ones. The Revenue officer thereafter went on to hold that as the transferees willing to retain the lands transferred in their favour vide option is 'B' Form filed with the case records, hence the finally published record of rights in respect of which 5A case No. 123 of 1975 of Mouza Akrampur Case no. 1 of Mouza Kharo, Case no. 1 of Mouza Maheshamaslandapur and case no. 1 of 1976 of Mouza Akrampur had been declared bonafide should be corrected in their favour. The schedule of vested lands of B.R. Case No. 4 of 1967 against Bibi Achiya Khatoon should be corrected accordingly and the revised Schedule in respect of vested lands of the said Bibi Achiya Khatoon should be prepared and sent to the Junior Land Reforms Officer for taking necessary action. This was by order dated 23.7.1976. On 6.1.1977 the Revenue Officer-cum-Assistant Settlement Officer prepared a schedule of lands transferred by Bibi Achiya Khatoon in favour of the petitioner which was marked Schedule A. Thus lands transferred in favour of Satinath Banerjee, respondent no. 6 was made schedule B, the lands transferred in favour of petitioner in respect of Case No. 3/75 under section 5A was made Annexure C and the land transferred by the said Achiya Khatoon in favour of the petitioner in respect of case No. 1. of 1976 under section 5A was made Scheduled D, the lands transferred by Bibi Achiya Khatoon in favour of the petitioner in respect of case no. 1 of 1977 of Mouza Maheshamaslandapur was made Schedule E and the lands transferred in favour of Panchanan which was later on transferred to respondent no. 6 in respect of Case No. 1 of 1976 under section 45A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act was made Schedule F.;