MAHAMMAD SALEM JAN MIA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1976-6-35
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 16,1976

Mahammad Salem Jan Mia Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BISWANATH MANDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.)The Petitioner, who was the Mutwalli of Hakimannessa Wakf Estate situated at Chalsapara, dist. Malda, has obtained this Rule under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order of the Revenue Officer, Makdampur Settlement Camp No. 1, English Bazar, in exercise of his powers under Sec. 6(1)(i) read with Sec. 45A of the West Bengal, Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and Rule 15D of the Estates Acquisition Rules. The Revenue Officer, by his said order, has purported to revise an earlier order under Sec. 6(1)(i) read with Sec. 44(2a) of the Act in respect of the selfsame wakf estate.
(2.)In my view, the learned Revenue Officer, in the instant case, has clearly acted in excess of his jurisdiction. It is settled law now that Sec. 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. 1953, does not contemplate successive enquiries in respect of the same subject -matter. In this connection see the case of Biswanath Mandal v/s. State of West Bengal, (1973) 78 C.W.N. 277. In the instant case, the Revenue Officer concerned has clearly assumed a jurisdiction not vested in him by law by revising the previous order of another Revenue Officer passed in case No. 7 of 1964 under Sec. 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. In the said previous case the Revenue Officer had ordered that the wakf estate in question be adjudged as an institution established exclusively for religious and charitable purposes within the meaning of Sec. 6(1)(i) and that the same would be subject to the benefits of the proviso to Sub -section (1) of Sec. 17 of the Act. He had, accordingly, order that necessary entries be made in the relevant khatians relating to the wakf properties.
(3.)The Revenue Officer, in the order impugned in the Rule, was fully aware of the said previous enquiry. But it was not open to him to brush aside the legal consequences of the order passed in the said case No. 7 of 1964 by observing that a fresh enquiry was required under the amended Sec. and the Rule. Another reason given in the matter was that the previous enquiries were done 'without consideration of the implication of the amendment'. The Revenue Officer, however, did not indicate which particular amendment of the law authorised him to hold a second enquiry.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.