K.J.Sen Gupta, J. - (1.) All those matters are concerned with common judgment and order passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal) dated 4th March, 2002 which disposed of two transfer applications being T.A.No. 81 of 2000 and T.A. No. 94 of 2002. Both these transfer application heard and disposed of by the learned Tribunal, were originally two separate writ petitions filed in this Court being W.P. No. 29433 (W) of 1997 and W.P. No. 1473W) of 1998. These two writ petitions were filed when the learned Tribunal was not set up, and consequent upon setting up of the said Tribunal by the appropriate Act both the writ petitions stood transferred by operation of law. The first writ petitions being WP No. 29433 (W) of 1997 was filed by one Ajit Kumar Maity, since deceased whereas the second one was filed by Sri. Sakti Ranjan Maity, applicant before us. During pendency of the first writ petition Ajit died intestate and as such Sakti was substituted in his place and stead in his application. In both the matters above along with other two matters, WPLRT 793 of 2003 and WPLRT 794 of 2003, are having origin of the same interlinking fact. Other two matters were filed by the transferees of some of the disputed plots of lands.
(2.) Fact is very short in this case as have been more or less admitted by the State respondents and also borne out by the records, and we set out briefly hereunder: One Satish Chandra Maity was original holder of land measuring about 109.43 acres of land. By registered deed of gift (Nirupam Patra) dated 14th March 1947 the said Satish, since deceased, during his life time he transferred significant quantity out of above quantity unto and in favour of seven deities viz. Sree Sree Laxmi Janardan Jew Thakur, Sree Saraswati, Sree Sree Hari Jew, Sree Sree Maharudra Jew, Sree Sree Laxmi Thakurani, Sree Sree Joydurga Thakurani, Sree Sree Sitala Thakurani Jew, said Ranjan Maity (grandson), Smt. Durgesh Nandini and Smt. Bhabhesh Nandini Maity being the granddaughters. In terms of the registered deed of gift Sakti got from his grandfather Satish, 22.48 acres of land. In or about December 1979 while correcting records of right suo motu proceeding being case No.546 of 1998 under section 44(2)(a) of West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 1954 Act) was initiated by the concerned Revenue Officer. By order dated 24th December 1979 it was held that the transferred land was not in khas possession of Sakti but was in possession of Satish hence Sakti's name was not recorded. Sakti thereafter filed return showing 21.47 acres of land in respect of case under section 14(T) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 1955 Act) said Act. While considering the said return filed under section 14(T) of the 1955 Act it was decided that Sakti was to retain 8.65 acres of land and the balance quantity of 12.82 acres of land was to vest in the state treating him to be a single-member family. Thereafter one Bhagbat Chandra Bera & Ors. challenged the said order of vesting by filing a writ petition being WP No. 2923 (W) of 1979. By an order dated 21st August, 1979 this Hon'ble Court quashed order of vesting and also granted liberty to the Revenue Officer to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. Sakti also filed a writ petition in the year 1980 challenging suo motu case started in 1978 and order of vesting passed therein and the same was registered as C.R.No. 1715(W) of 1980. This writ petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Gopal Mukherjee (as His Lordship then was) by an order dated 4th June 1986 whereby and whereunder His Lordship upon hearing the learned lawyer for State was pleased to set aside the said suo motu case No. 546/48 of 1979 observing Sakti having derived his titles by virtue of registered deed of gift dated 14th March 1947 and further noting prior proceedings under section 44 (2)(a) of 1954 Act which culminated in conclusive order in his favour. It was also noted that entire land so acquired by and under the said deed of gift, was sold out to third party. By this judgment His Lordship was pleased to direct to carry out direction given in earlier judgment dated 21st August 1979 in C.R.No. 2923 (W) of 1979. Sakti having found correction of records of right not being done in terms of order of Justice Mukherjee dated 4th June 1986 filed writ petition being Civil Order No. 15582(W) of 1989 for remedy and this writ petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble Justice Nirendra Krishna Mitra (as His Lordship then was) dated 7th December 1989 with direction to correct record of right on the basis of the judgment and order of Justice Mukherje dated 4th June 1986. Even then nothing was done so Justice Mitra was pleased to give further direction on 21st March 1997 in contempt proceeding (Civil Rule No. 14245 (W) of 1993) to correct record of rights within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. Thereafter Sakti received two notices, one issued from District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Tamluk another one issued on 1st September 1997 by Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Patashpur-I intending to carry out the said orders. At the same time in or about September 1997 a notice issued by Revenue Officer of the same Block was served upon Ajit, father of Sakti intending to hold hearing a case initiated under sections 14 T(5), 14T (9), 14 T(3) and section 7A of 1955 Act. After hearing Revenue Officer passed the impugned order on 15th September 1997 and 22nd September 1997. Thereafter both the father and the son challenged the said two orders by filing two separate writ petitions as mentioned above.
(3.) Mr. Swadesh Ranjan Bhunia, learned senior advocate while highlighting the facts, submits that, the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal is not sustainable as the same has been passed, without considering the case made out by his client in the writ petition. The learned Tribunal has accepted the order of the Revenue Officer blindly. No attempt has been made to deal with point raised in the writ petitions filed by his client, which stood transferred subsequently, therefore, his real grievance against the order of the Revenue Officer which was challenged in the writ petition is not adverted to. His contention is that in the name of correction of records the Revenue Officer has declared an ancient document of 1947 to be a forged one simply on surmise and conjecture and without any iota of evidence. The Deed of Gift executed by his client's late grand father one Satish Chandra Maity dated 14th March 1947 was acted upon and the records of right were corrected accordingly as such there was no scope to discard this document.;