Sankari Prasad Das Ghosh, J. - (1.) This revisional application, heard as contested application, is directed against seizure of some paddy and straw by the police Joynagar P.S. on 22.11.1985 from plot nos. 219/498, 220/499 and 225/500, appertaining to khatian no. 924 of Mouza Joynagar, in pursuance of memo of the Sub-Divisional Officer (S), 24-Parganas, dated 21.11.1985 and memo of the Block Development Officer, Joynagar, dated 20.11.1985.
(2.) The petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid plot nos. 219/498, 220/499 and 225/500 of Mouza Joynagar by purchase in the year 1973. The opposite party no. 1 claimed to be a bargadar of these plots (hereinafter referred to as the disputed plots for the sake of convenience). There were proceedings under section 144, Cr.P.C. at the instance of the opposite party no. 1. The opposite party no. 1 lost in all these proceedings. The opposite party no. 1 filed an application under section 18(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, before the Bhag Chas Officer. The application was referred to arbitration. The verdict in the arbitration was that the opposite no. 1 was never a bargadar in respect of the disputed plots. The opposite party no. 1 went on preferring applications, one after another, before the Bhag Chas Officer claiming barga right and could not be successful in these applications. Matters went on in this manner from 1973 to 1982. In the latter part of 1982, the opposite party no. 1 got an order in his favour from the Block Development Officer. The petitioner, claiming to be in possession of the disputed plots since his purchase in 1973, preferred a writ application, being C.R.No. 2943(W) of 1984, in this Court. In that Civil Rule, there was an order of injunction against the opposite party no. 1 and thereafter an order for maintenance of status quo. It was observed in the final order passed in that Civil Rule that though the petitioner had all along decisions in his favour till 1982, the climate changed thereafter and the local police, through political influence, started giving reports about physical possession with the opposite party no. 1. It was stated in that final order that in an earlier proceeding, the opposite party no. l disclaimed his interest and that there was an award by village arbitrators against the opposite party no. 1. On observing that the recent report of the Junior Land Reforms Officer dated 27-6-1984 found possession with the opposite party no. 1 and that another bhag chas case filed by the opposite party no. 1 during the pendency of the writ proceeding was pending, it was directed in that final order passed in the Civil Rule that status quo regarding possession of the disputed plots should be maintained for three months from the date of that final order on 14.8.1984. The period of three months expired on 14.11.1985. The bhag chas proceeding is still pending. In the meantime, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 22.11.1985 from Sub-Inspector, Dhirendra Nath Biswas, of Joynagar P.S. forbidding him and the opposite party no. 1 from harvesting the paddy from the disputed plots and intimating that Junior Land Reforms Officer-II would harvest the paddy from these plots. There was reference in that notice from Joynagar P.S. to memo.no. 5908 dated 21.11.1985 from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, 24-Parganas, and memo. no. 1448 dated 20.11.1985 from the Block Development Officer-I, Joynagar. After being served with that notice dated 22.11.1985, some of the paddy and straw of the disputed plots was seized by the police of Joynagar P.S. under a seizure-list dated 22.11.1985. These seized articles were kept in the custody of one Ichha Molla on condition of producing the same in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Alipore. On alleging that this seizure was made by the police while the petitioner was cutting the standing paddy from the disputed plots and on alleging further that in spile of his best efforts, he could not procure a copy of the order/memo of the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Block Development Officer, the petitioner approached this Court for cancelling the memo dated 21.11.1985 of the Sub-Divisional Officer (S), the memo dated 20.11.1985 of the Block Development Officer-I, Joynagar, as well as the notice dated 22.11.1985 from Sub-Inspector, Dhirendra Nath Biswas of Joynagar P.S. and for passing appropriate orders, by filing the revisional application under section 401/482, Cr.P.C.
(3.) Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has contended that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer acted illegally in sending the memo dated 21.11.1985 on the basis of which the paddy was seized from the disputed plots while the petitioner was harvesting paddy in the disputed plots.;