Decided on April 24,1996

Gokul Chandra Adak And Ors. Appellant
The State of West Bengal and Ors. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



Nikhil Naih Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.)In this writ application the petitioners have challenged an appellate order dated 2nd June, 1992 passed in L. R. Appeal case no. 3, 4, 5 (A. P.) of 1991 under section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
(2.)The petitioners' case, in short is that the lands described in the schedule under paragraph 3 of the writ application originally belonged to Kartick Ch. Adak. the father of petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3 and grandfather of respondent no. 6 and petitioner no. 5. Kartick Ch. Adak was a recorded ryot in respect of the said 14 items of land comprising homestead, - agricultural and pond with many fruit bearing trees. Kartick Ch. Adak constructed his permanent residence and a farm house on parts of the schedule lands and cultivated the rest agricultural land. The pond therein was and is being used for rearing fishes. Kartick Ch. Adak during his lifetime cultivated the agricultural lands personally, with the help of his family members including the petitioners herein. Kartick Ch. Adak died leaving behind him five sons, namely Gobardhan, Gour Ch., Netai (petitioner no. 2), Gokul (petitioner no. 1) and Nilmoni (potitioner no. 3). Thereafter Gour Ch. died issueless leaving his wife Sm. Malati Adak (petitioner no. 4) as his sole legal heir. Gobardhan also died leaving behind him three sons and four daughters including petitioner no. 5 and Subodh Ch. Adak (respondent no. 6) as his legal heirs and representatives. The petitioners no. 4 and 5 are living in their ancestor's house situated on the schedule lands. The petitioners and their families are dependent mainly upon the yearly produce of the schedule lands which are undivided and are under personal cultivation of the petitioners. There has been no partition among the legal heirs of the deceased original recorded owner Kartick Ch. Adak.
(3.)To manage and to facilitate cultivation of the schedule lands, one of the co-owners Sri Subodh Ch. Adak (respondent no. 6) was entrusted with the duty as a care - taker of the said lands and to get the lands cultivated and for that purpose he was allowed to stay at the undivided farm house. Subodh Ch. Adak as care - taker and authorised agent, beside being a co-owners, got the lands cultivated and collected the produces and distributed the same amongst the heirs of Kartick Ch. Adak including the petitioners. It has. however, transpired that Subodh Ch. Adak filed three surreptitious petitions before the Revenue Officer for recording his name as Bargadar with respect to the schedule lands and thereupon three barga cases no. 2291, 2292 and 2293 of 1989 were initiated. No copy of the said application was served upon the petitioners. No notice of the barga cases were also given. However, on 13th Dec., 1989 petitioner no. 3 Nilmoni Adak alone received through post bearing posting seal dated 13th Dec., 1989 a purported notice dated 4.12.89 issued by the Revenue Officer in connection with barga case no. 2293 of 1989 fixing 12.12,1989 at 9 a. m. for spot enquiry with respect to a part of the schedule lands. Subodh Ch. Adak appeared to be the applicant in the said notice. No notice to the remaining two barga cases was served upon any of the petitioners. The notice upon Nilmoni Adak was beyond the date and time fixed in the said notice. The petitioners are not aware of the spot enquiries and could not take part in the alleged enquires. After obtaining certified copies of the orders, the petitioners came to know that respondent no. 6 Subodh Ch. Adak had been recorded as Bargadar in respect of the schedule lands. The petitioners then moved a writ petition no. C. O. 4301 (W) of 1990 against the arbitrary and ex parte recording of the name of a co-owners Subodh Ch. Adak as Bargadar, The writ petition was disposed of by N K Mitra. J. by an order dated 26th April, 1990 by holding inter alia that as an appeal is provided against the impugned orders the petitioners will be at liberty to prefer appeals against the impugned orders and till such time as the appeal is not disposed of status quo as on that date was to be maintained. The petitioners duly preferred the appeals before the prescribed authority and by the impugned order dated 2nd June, 1992, the Deputy District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Hooghly as the appellate authority wrongly, illegally and without considering the effect of non-service of the notices of the spot enquiries and other points raised before him dismissed the appeals by a single order.

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