Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.) Two rules are heard separately. Let C.R. 2400(W) of 1976 be adjourned for two weeks from date. Re: C.R. 2401 (W) of 1976 : The petitioner claiming to be the owner of the three plots described in the writ petition situated within mouza Sakpara, P. S. Jhargram, obtained this rule against the memo dated the 4th February, 1975 issued by the Bhagchas Officer and also another memo dated the 19th October, 1973 Annexure E to the petition. The Bhagchas officer by the memo no 105(2) L.H. (J) dated the 4th February, 1975 informed the petitioner that Banamali Das chiming to be bargadar of plot nos. 9, 11 and 21/45 of mouza Sakpara had deposited on the 3rd February, 1975, 6 maunds 10 sheers of paddy being allegedly petitioner's share of the produce as owner. The Bhagchas Officer called upon the petitioner to take delivery of the said produce in default of which the same was liable to be sold and the sole proceeds deposited in the treasury to the credit of the petitioner.
(2.) The above deposit of the produce was made by Banamali Das under sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. In making the said deposit no doubt Banamali Das had asserted that he was a bargadars in respect of the land in question. But Section 16(4) does not provide for any adjudication in the person in whose favour such deposit is made disputes the claim of the person making the deposit that he is a bargadar. In fact the petitioner appeared to have filed a petition before the Bhagchas Officer denying that Banamili Das was a bargadar under them. The petitioner has also referred to certain adjudications under Section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act wherein the claim of Banamali Das allegedly for recording his name as a bargadar in the revisional records was rejected. The Bhagchas Officer in allowing Banamali Das to make the aforesaid deposit under sub-section (4) of Section 16 did not adjudicate whether or not the said Banamali Das was really a bargadar under the petitioner. The only effect of making such deposit was in case Banamali Das was really a bargadar his obligation to deliver the owner's share of the produce stood discharges. But by reason of making such deposit Banamali could not and did not acquire any additional right. As already stated, there was no scope for any adjudication under Section 16 of the claims of Banamali Das that he was a bargadar and that the petitioner had refused to accept the owner's share of the produce tendered by him. The point whether said Banamali Das was really a bargadar, if necessary, may be adjudicated in appropriate proceeding in appropriate manner unless such adjudication has been already made. I express no opinion on the merits of the claims and contentions of the parties.
(3.) The memo No. 1338LR(J) dated 19th October, 1973 was clearly illegal. Presumably the Junior Land Reforms Officer by the said memo purported to convey to the sub-divisional officer his decision that Banamali Das as a bargadar had cultivated the three plots of the said memo. In the first place, the Junior Land Reforms Officer did not disclose under what provisions of law he had made an enquiry and had adjudicated that Banamali Das was a bargadar. The said memo cannot be considered to be a determination under Chapter III of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Secondly, the Junior Land Reforms Officer did not himself make the decision because he had stated "the matter has been discussed in the L. R. A. C. at its meeting dated 29.9.73 and the committee approved of the findings." The respondents have not disputed that the Land Reforms Advisory Committee which had no statutory recognition was incompetent to either determine the question whether Banamli Das was a bargadar or to approve of the findings in this behalf by any other authority. The determination mentioned in the said memo, annexure E, was made without any authority of law. Therefore, the said memo annexure E. should be quashed.;