- (1.) ONE Indra Bhusan Chowdhury was the owner of the subject land. After his death the land devolved upon the heirs of Indra Bhusan Chowdhury, including Tapesh Prasad Chowdhury. On a family arrangement Tapesh became the owner of 1. 99 acres of land being the subject matter of the writ petition. The land being Dag No. 352/917 was conveyed in favour of Tapesh by the other heirs pursuant to Registered Deed of Exchange executed on May 25, 1995. Dag No. 354 was conveyed by a Registered Deed of Sale in favour of Tapesh on May 30, 1991 whereas Dag No. 366 was conveyed in his favour by Registered Deed of Sale dated June 1, 1991. The private respondents claimed that their father Nakul Chandra Das was a Bargadar under Indra Bhusan Chowdhury. After the death of Indra Bhusan, sons of Nakul being the respondent nos. 6 to 9 were in possession of the land in question as Bargadar. There was no dispute between the owner and the Bargadar at any point of time until 1998. However, on perusal of the records, it appears that name of Nakul was never recorded as Bargadar. In January 1998 a series of complaints were lodged by the private respondents with the local police station from time to time to the effect that Tapesh had forcibly harvested the paddy.
(2.) THE private respondents approached the authority for recording their names as Bargadar. The B. L. and L. R. O. issued a notice dated February 16, 1998 to Tapesh asking him to be present along with records in regard to the prayer of the private respondents for recording their names as Bargadar. On March 20, 1998 Tapesh made a representation to the Revenue Inspector to shift the date of hearing. Tapesh filed a writ petition being W. P. No. 8257 (W) of 1998 which was disposed of by the Learned single Judge by judgement and order dated June 9, 1998 directing the authority to dispose of his representation to be submitted by him. The order of the learned single Judge was communicated to the authority on June 11, 1998. The Revenue Officer issued a notice of hearing. Tapesh filed a written objection to the effect that the names of the private respondents had been recorded without following the direction of the learned single Judge. Tapesh filed second writ petition for quashing the order passed in Barga Case No. 3 of 1998. The second writ petition being W. P. No. 12792 (W) of 1998 was transferred to the Land Tribunal and renumbered as T. A. 43 of 2000. During the pendancy of the said writ petition before the Tribunal, Tapesh approached the learned Sub. Divisional Executive Magistrate, Barasat under Section 144 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate directed the Revenue Officer to submit an enquiry report. Revenue Inspector accordingly conducted an enquiry. The Inspector reported that the private respondents cultivated Aman Paddy in 1998 in the land in question which was harvested by Tapesh forcibly. The officer, however, observed that the private respondents did not approach any Court of Law contemporaneously. The Tribunal disposed of the matter vide order dated February 19, 2002 inter alia granting liberty to Tapesh to prefer an appeal from the order of the B. L. and L. R. O. passed in Barga Case No. 3 of 1998. In the mean time, at the instance of the private respondents the authority initiated Bhag Chas Case Nos. 22 of 2002, 23 of 2002, 24 of 2002, 25 of 2002 and 26 of 2002. The private respondents also applied under Section 17 (1) (C) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for deposit of Bhag Chas produce. The private respondents also initiated proceedings under Section 19b of the said Act of 1955 on April 26, 2002, inter alia, praying for steps to be taken for restoration of their right to cultivate the land as Bargadar. It was alleged in the said petition that Tapesh had been resisting them forcibly from cultivating the said land in question. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal on November 27, 2003 by holding that the private respondents were in possession of the said land prior to 1999 as per the enquiry report. The appeal was dismissed. Tapesh approached the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal declined to interfere with the determination made by the Revenue Officer so affirmed by the appellate authority by their order passed in Appeal No. 38 of 2002.
(3.) BEING aggrieved Tapesh approached this Court by filing the above writ petition which was heard by us on the above mentioned date after completion of affidavits. Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the application contended as follows :- i) The private respondents alleged that their father was a Bargadar under Indra Bhusan whereas no such recording was ever done as would appear from the records. ii) Assuming Nakul was the Bargadar in respect of the land in question, after his death, his heirs were obliged to nominate one of them and inform the authority accordingly for mutating the nominee under Section 15a of the said Act of 1955. In absence of such nomination either by consent of all the heirs or by the Revenue Authority in case of disagreement, the alleged arrangement of barga stood extinguished on the death of Nakul and the land became free of Barga. iii) The Tribunal erred in holding that since Tapesh was not a resident of the locality, he could not cultivate the land personally or through engagement of daily labours. iv) Assuming the private respondents had cultivated the land in absence of tender of Bhag Chas produce to the extent of owners share under Section 17 (1) (C)such arrangements stood terminated. v) On the own showing of the private respondents it appears that they had been dispossessed in 1998. Unless they were restored in possession, they could not be mutated in place of their predecessor, hence, the order of recording their names subsequent to their dispossession was bad in law. In support of his contentions Mr. Chatterjee relied on the following decisions :-1]. 2000, Volume II, Calcutta High Court Notes, Page 386 ( Kartick Bagdi and Ors. VS- Sri Bidyut Kumar Ray and Ors.)2]. All India Reporter 1997, Calcutta, Page 151 (Smt. Sari Mahanti VS- Ghauiram Mahata)3]. Calcutta Weekly Notes Volume 90, Page 467 (Fazilatnnessa Bewa and Ors. VS-Mezahar Sheik and Ors.)4]. Calcutta Weekly Notes Volume 88, Page 304 ( Hirendra Nath Mondal VS-Rajendra Nath Satpathi and Ors.);