Shamsuddin Ahmed, J. - (1.) In this writ application vesting orders dated 1987 and 10.9.87 passed by the Revenue Officer, Ghatal in case no 86 of 81 are under challenge.
(2.) Writ petitioner's case in short is that he holds 11 acres of agricultural lands in non-irrigated area. In Mouza Gopalpur, P.S. Chandrskona, District Midnapur. His family consists of himself and four sons A notice was issued on him dated 5.8.81 to submit necessary statement of land and further land purchased by him and also all lands transferred by him after August 7, 1969 as well as the composition of his family as on 15.271. The matter was heard on 29.8.81 but no order was passed on that date. On 3.9.81 he moved on application being CR No. 9838/W) of 81 and obtained an order of stay of all further proceedings The said writ application was disposed of on 3.7.81 by setting aside the order passed by the Revenue Officer if any and also directing the petitioner to file a return. In form 7A and also directed the Revenue Officer to decide the case in accordance with law. Accordingly, he filed a return in form 7A of the total land as on 15.2.71. On 1.9.87 when the matter was taken up for hearing the writ petitioner raised an objection under a 14N of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and claimed an enquiry whether his lands are situated in irrigated area or not. The petitioner was allowed to retain 618 acres of land and treated his family as consisting of him alone. The lards were treated as in the irrigated area. As the certified copy was not granted to him he moved this Court, the said writ application was disposed of by me with a direction to supply the certified copy of the order within six months and also restraining tit respondents from giving any effect of the order of vesting until 3 weeks after supply of the certified copy. By the said order the Revenue Officer had decided that all lands held by the raiyat were irrigated and also decided by applying ss 14L & 14Y of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act that his family consisted of only one member as the other members have become major on the date of the decision. They have also challenged the finding of the Revenue Officer that some plots of land belonged to his wife and ultimately devolved on his fou sons According to him the land belonged to him and he had purchased the same in benami of his wife Accordingly, the writ petitioner has come up with this writ application.
(3.) As it appears the writ petitioner has raised mainly two questions in this writ petition, one of them is that even though he raised the question whether the land is within the irrigated area that was not determined by the Revenue Officer in terms of the provisions of Section 14N of the W B Land Reforms Act Section 14N clearly lays down that if any question arises as to whether any land is or is not within an irrigated area such question shall be determined by the prescribed authority in such manner as may be prescribed. The method prescribed under this section is contained in rule 14B of the WB Land Reforms Rules. The Rule provides that the prescribed authority shall hold such enquiry as he may think necessary record a memorandum of such enquiry and after giving the raiyat a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall give his decision with reasons therefor. On perusal of the impugned orders it appears that the Revenue Officer decided the lands to be within Irrigated area only on the finding that it is within notified area. Irrigated area has been defined Ins 14K(d) It means an area specified as such by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette being an area which is or is in the opinion of the State Government can be of being irrigated at any time during the agricultural year commencing on the 1st day of Baisakh, 1377 B.S. or thereafter from any State canal irrigation project, State power driven tubewell or shallow tubewell or State rives lift irrigation project With regard to the determination of the irrigated area the Board of Revenue by a circular no 395(15) GE Calcutta dated 12.1.73 clarified the position. It was admitted in the said notification that some areas were notified as irrigated area but the same do not get water and the prescribed authority was directed to hold an enquiry in terms of the provisions of rule 14B. From the definition of the Irrigated land noted above it is clear that in determining whether a land is within the Irrigated area the first condition is to see that it is within the notified area as made by the Government but the said notification cannot be the sole basis for determining whether the land is within the irrigated area. In specific cases whenever the question is raised the Revenue Officer who is now the prescribed authority under Section 14K(d) has to hold an enquiry and find out whether the land in question is within irrigated area as defined in Section 14K(d) In doing so, he must give a hearing to the raiyat as well as prepare a memorandum of enquiry held by him. These are obligatory steps for determination whether the land is within irrigated area or not. On perusal of the order it appears that this has not been done by the Revenue Officer and the writ petitioner's challenge on this score succeeds.;