Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) This application is directed against an order dated 10.9.93 patted by the Revenue Officer and S.D.O., Contal as contained in Annexure 'H' to the writ application, whereby and whereunder the petitioners' application for cancellation of patta granted in favour of respondent Nos. 10 to 12 was rejected, inter alia, by the following order:- "C/R is put up. Perused all records and documents. Seen the report of B.L. & L.R.O. It appears that the suit laid was vested under W. B. E. A. Act without any encumbrance and as such the petitioner cannot claim any barga or other right on the land. The petitioner has failed to prove that the O. P. was Ineligible to obtain patta or that the patta was granted to O.P. through fraud or mistake. The question of possession is not a ground for annulment of patta under Section 49(2) of W. B. L. R. Act. Hence, the application for annulment of patta under Section 49(2) of W. B. L. R. Act is rejected and the case is filed."
(2.) The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
(3.) The petitioners claimed that they bad been bargadars in respect of the lands in question as would appear from the possession certificates granted in their favour as contained in Annexure 'A' stiles lathe writ application. The said certificates bad born granted on or about 16-18.9.71 by the Sabhapati, Contai-II, Panchayat Sanity The petitioners claimed that they had been in possession of the land in question for a long time. They cane to learn that the respondent No. 2 in purported exercise of his power conferred upon him under section 49 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, granted settlement of the land is question in favour of the respondent Nos. 10 to 12. The said application is contained in Annexure 'D' to the writ application. A bare perusal of the said application shows that therein the petitioners had claimed possession for a period of more than 10 years, and thus they claimed a preferential right in respect of settlement. It has been contended that such settlement bad been made in favour of the said respondent Nos. 10 to 12 by mistake or by misrepresentation. Pursuant to the said application, notices had been issued upon the respondent Nos. 10 to 12. It does not appear that any opportunity bad been pasted to file independent evidence and only the parties addressed the respondent No. 2. By reason of the aforementioned order, the question which had been determined by the said respondent is as to whether barga could be an encumbrance within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. Having held that the right claimed by the petitioners would to encumbrance, the said application has been rejected, and only laconically and casually it has been recorded that the petitioners have failed to prove that tie O.P. var ineligible to obtain patta and that patta was granted to the O.P. through fraud or mistake. As indicated hereinbefore, from the order sheet as contained in Annexure 'H' to the writ application, it foes not appear that any opportunity had been granted to the parties to file their respective evidences or even records bad been called for to see as to whether the provisions of the Land Management Manual, and in particular the provisions of Rules 60 to 65 thereof had been complied with.;