KANAILAL CHATTAPADHYA Vs. SATYENDRA NATH MAZUMDAR
LAWS(CAL)-1976-9-2
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 04,1976

KANAILAL CHATTAPADHYA Appellant
VERSUS
SATYENDRA NATH MAZUMDAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAYARAPPAN V. MADHAVI AMMA [REFERRED TO]
MULRAJ VS. MURTI RAGHUNATHLL MAHARAJ [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

HABTL MONDAL VS. COLLECTOR BANKURA [LAWS(CAL)-1979-4-12] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioner in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution has challenged the validity and the legality of an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranaghat, acting as the appellate authority under Section 7 of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973. The said authority allowed an appeal preferred by the present opposite party against the order of dismissal of his application for restoration under Section 4 of the said Act made by the Special Officer under the above Act for Chakdah and Haringhata. On 15th January, 1969, Satyendra Nath Mozumdar, opposite party in this Rule executed a Sale Deed conveying, 60 decimals of land out of Plot No.664, Khatian No.1141 in Mouza Mollabelia in favour of the present petitioner for a consideration of Rs.2500/-. On the same date the said vendor and the vendee executed an agreement for re-conveyance. On 5th May, 1973 the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act came into force. On 21st March, 1974, the present opposite party made an application under Section 4 of the said Act before the Special Officer, Chakdah-Haringhata, interalia, alleging that on account of distress, for maintenance of his family and for marriage expenses of his daughter he had sold the aforesaid property on 15th January, 1969 to the opposite party. He prayed for an order of restoration of the said lands alienated by him by the said kobala. The present opposite party opposed the said application.
(2.)The Special Officer, Chakdah-Haringhata, by his order dated 16th October, 1974 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for restoration. The Special Officer interalia held that transferor had violated the terms and conditions of the said agreement for reconveyance as the time mentioned in the agreement for re-conveyance had expired. The transferor, who is opposite party in this Rule, being, aggrieved preferred an appeal under West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act against rejection of his application for restoration passed by the Special Officer. As already stated, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranaghat acting as the appellate authority by his order dated 18th July, 1975 allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of the Special Officer. He directed that the land be restored and called for report from J.L.R.O., Haringhata, under sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Act in order to award compensation.
(3.)Mr. Roy Chowdhury for the petitioner has made three-fold submission before me. In the first place, he submitted that the appeal of the transferee opposite party before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranaghat was not maintainable in law. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury Section 7 of the Act provides for an appeal only against an order passed under Section 4(4) of the Act for restoration of the land transferred to the transferor; but in the instant case the Special Officer having rejected the restoration application of the transferor in effect had declined to pass any order under Section 4(4) of the Act and therefore an appeal against the said order was incompetent.
;


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