- (1.) This appeal is directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed a writ application preferred, on behalf of the appellants. The admitted facts are that the appellants/petitioners were settled with lands by the State Authorities, though the said lands were mot vested lands. In a suit, the right of the owners of the lands had been declared and on the basis of a writ application, preferred by the owners, the State Authorities were directed to cancel the patta issued in favour of the present appellants with regard to those lands which were admittedly not vested lands. By the notice impugned before the learned Single Judge, the appellants were directed to deposit back the patta as the same stood cancelled. Against such a notice, the appellants moved a writ, application, Inter alia, contending that before treating the patta as cancelled, they ought to have been gives an opportunity of being heard in conformity with the provisions of Section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The learned Trial Judge did not accept such a contention and dismissed the writ application against which the present appeal has been preferred.
(2.) We have treated this appeal as on day's list, as the parties are appearing before us and the respondents waive service of notices of appeal on them, dispensing with ail the formalities required to be observed in terms of the Rules of this Court. Since the lands could not be contended to be vested lands, the transaction of settlement in favour of the appellants was void ab initio, and the question of any reasonable opportunity in compliance with Section 49 (2), as referred to above, does not arise. Section 49 (2), in our view, would be attracted in cases where there is scope for an enquiry where a cancellation is made, but not with regard to transaction of lands which were not at ail at the disposal of the State Government for settlement through patta. in this connection, we have relied upon a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Somatya Kisku v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 1992 (1) CLJ 487. We, accordingly, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Trial Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed by us.
(3.) There will be no order as to costs.;