Manash Nath Roy, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who admittedly is a lessee in respect of Beel Banal Jalkar under Suit L.R. Circle (hereinafter referred to as the said Jalkar), for 1382 B.S. has impeached in this Rule, the issue of a tender notice in annexure 'D' for having the said Jalkar settled amongst others for the year 1383 B.S. and the subsequent determination by the Additional District Magistrate (L.R.) Murshidabad in annexure F, and wherein he has opined that there would be no bar in having fresh settlement of the said Jalkar for 1383 B.S.
(2.) Admittedly, by the tender notice in annexure A, which is dated 24th February 1975, under Rule 273(AA), (b) and (e) of the Government Estate Mannual, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the said Manual), a tender was invited for the settlement of the Jalkar for 1382 B.S. It has also been mentioned in the said tender notice that such settlement may be for a long term at a discretion of the competent authority and subject to confirmation of particular Rule 75 read with Rule 271 of the said Manual. It has been alleged by the petitioner that in terms of the said tender notice, he duly filed his offer, wherein he made it clear that if the settlement was for one year, he would pay Rs. 4.500/- but if it is for there years, he would pay Rs. 5,550/- per year. The statements about the payment of Rs. 4,500/- if the settlement is for one year, is apparently incorrect because it has now transpired from a reference to the offer as produced along with the record that he in fact offered Rs. 5000/- if the settlement was for one year. Be that as it may, the offer of the petitioner was accepted and he, it appears from annexure B to the petition, which is a receipt dated 17th March 1975 deposited Rs. 1375/- on account of 1/4th of the lease money of the said Jalkar for 1382 B.S. The said amount was accepted with a notice that the same was subject to approval of the higher authorities. It further appears from annexure 'C' to the petition, which is another receipt, that on 11th April 1975, the petitioner deposited the balance of Rs. 1,125/- on account of 3/4th of the lease money of the said Jalkar for 1382 B.S. and such amount was again received subject to approval of higher authorities. On a reference to those receipts, which without any doubt show the payment of Rs. 5,500/- it has been submitted by the petitioner that such acceptance of Rs. 5,500/- would establish that he was granted a lease for three years in respect of the said Jalkar and that too pursuant to his offer as aforesaid. It has further been stated in the petition that when such offer of the said sum for three years was accepted, there was a tacit representation, at least by the respondents to the petitioner, that he would be or in fact, he has been granted lease for the said jalkar for three years and on that assurance, the petitioner has acted to his detriment and prejudice. In fact, it has been stated in the petition that on the understanding as aforesaid, the petitioner has spent more than Rs. 25,000/- for the development of the said jalkar and reared fish there.
(3.) The present Rule as aforesaid, was obtained when a fresh tender for 1385 B.S. for the settlement of the said jalkar, was invited and while issuing the Rule, this court was pleased to grant an ad interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to the impugned tender in annexure B and further to allow the petitioner to continue his possession in respect of the said jalkar until 1384 B.S. in terms of the settlement. It appears that because of this injunction, the petitioner has been in the said jalkar and is still there. At one stage a dispute arose as to the person who is in possession of the said jalkar. Claims and counterclaims were made and since I was not in a position to have the actual facts from the pleadings of the parties, I had to appoint Mr. Tapas Mukherjee, a learned Advocate of this court as Commissioner and Mr. Mukherjee by his report dated 24th January 1978 has mentioned that the petitioner at all material times was and is still in possession of the said jalkar.;