Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner in this application has, Inter alia, prayed for nuance of writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to cancel or withdraw the purporting recording of respondent No. 6 as bargadar in respect of the land details whereof have been stated in Paragraph 2 of the writ application. Admittedly, the parties ere litigating terms. It is accepted that a title suit is still pending between parties as regards their respective claim of title over the lands in question. In this writ application, this Court is merely concerned with the question as to whether barga recording made in favour of the respondent No. 6 is valid. The petitioner, Inter alia, stated in the writ application that the purported barga recording has been made without giving any notice and without giving an opportunity of beating to the petitioner. No affidavit in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the State nor records have been produced. It was for the State to satisfy this Court that barga recording in the name of the respondent No 6 has been done in accordance with law. The respondent No. 6, however, in Paragraph 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition stated that notices have been served upon the recorded owners as would be borne out from Annexure 'X' to the said affidavit-in-opposition From a perusal of Annexure 'X' to the affidavit-in-opposition it appears that a report was submitted by the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Rampurhat L.R. Circle, showing that there has been an apprehension of breach of peace lathe locality. The said Officer was making an enquiry on the basis of a prayer made by one of the parties to initiate proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that report Itself it has been stated that Barga Certificate No. 9485 dated 4.5.83 has been granted in favour of the respondent No. 6 while accepting the fact that the petitioners have file a title suit bearing No. T. S. 78/80 in the Court of the learsed Munsif, Rampurhat, wherein an order for maintaining statue quo had been passed.
(2.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6, however, has also drawn this Court's attention to a purported notice issued in terms of proviso to sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3) of the Rule 21, from a perusal whereof it appears that Revenue Officer allegedly fixed 4.4.83 for an enquiry. Curiously enough, from the report dated 17.12.83, it appears that the fact as to whether said notice was served upon the petitioners and/or in the locality in question is rot clear. It is not for the respondent No. 6 to show that such a notice led been issued but it was for the State to show that such a notice bed been issued. However, from the said purported notice dated 4.4.83 itself it appears that a field inspection was to be held on 11.8.83 at 10:00 O'clock. From another notice dated 4.4.83, it appears that an enquiry in terms of Sections 51 and 29B and Rule 22(b) was to be held on 11.4.83. In the said notice names of Raiyats were mentioned is Kinu Mondal, Beras Mondal and Mezad Mondal sons of Iru Mondal. Thus admittedly, no notice had been served upon the petitioners.
(3.) Mr. Kabir, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has also submitted that Rule 21(b) or the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules has been declared ultra vires as would appear from the decisions of this Court reported in 1986 (1) CLJ 161 and 1987 (1) CLJ 36. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not concerned with regard to the respective title claimed by the petitioner and the respondent No. 6. If the respondent No. 6 is bargadar his application must be disposed of by the competent authority in terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and the Rules framed thereunder upon complying with the principles of natural Justice. As in this case evidently no notice has been served upon the petitioner, the impugned barga recording by Certificate No. 9485 dated 4.5.83, cannot be sustained. It is quashed accordingly.;