Ganendra Narayan Ray, J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against Che allegation made by the Revenue Officer under section 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act determining the ceiling of the lands of the petitioner which are to be retained by the petitioner under the Act. The petitioner has contended that there is a dispute as to the nature of the land in question, namely, whether tome of the lands are irrigated or non-irrigated lands, and under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, if there is a dispute on the question of irrigation or non-irrigation of the (torn) then such dispute has to be resolved in the prescribed manner. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that such determination about the nature of irrigation concerning the lands of the petitioner has not been made in accordance with law, but the Revenue Officer proceeding on the footing the lands were irrigated lands, and on the basis thereof ceiling was determined. No one on behalf of the respondents has appeared to refute such allegations and in the absence of any affidavit-in-opposition disputing the correctness of the statements made in the writ petition the allegations made by the petitioner must be accepted.
(2.) The learned Counsel has also contended that plot No. 1430/1817 appertaining to khatian No. 358 measuring 65 acres is a public burial ground, as recorded in the revisional record of rights finaly framed and published. By no stretch of imagination such burial ground can be treated as agricultural lands. It is also contended that plot No. 1430 appertaining to khatian No. 178 is also the burial ground for the family of the petitioner measuring about 1.21 acres of land. Simply because bamboos have been grown on the said burial ground, the nature of the land as burial ground does not get changed. It has been contended by the learned Counsel that trees are usually grown on burial grounds just to keep such grounds under shade. It is contended that there is no finding that the land which was once a burial ground of the family of the petitioner had ceased to be a burial ground and had been used as agricultural lauds.
(3.) In my view, there is enough force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no material to show that the burial ground has ceased to be such by the change of user subsequently. Hence, the same cannot be treated as agricultural land even though bamboos have been grown on it.;