Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.) Sk. Abdul Jalil, respondent No. 1 herein, by several registered sale deeds conveyed different portions of Plot No. 6296, inouza Kusumgram, in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 had filed two applications under Section 4 of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 for restoration of the lands alienated by the aforesaid sale deeds in favour of the petitioner. The present petitioner had opposed the said applications. The Block Development Officer, Manteswar, as the Special Officer under Act XXIII of 1973 allowed the application of the respondent No. 1 in respect of '42 dec. of land in Khatian No. 270, Plot No. 6296 and ordered restoration of the said land. He, however, rejected the prayer for restoration made in the other application in respect of 33 dec. of land conveyed by the respondent No. 1 by kobala dated 17th January, 1968.
(2.) The present petitioner being aggrieved by the said restoration order preferred an appeal. The respondent No. 1 also preferred an appeal before the Sub - divisional Officer as the appellate authority in respect of rejection of his prayer for restoration in respect of the sale deed dated 17th January, 1968. The Sub - divisional Officer, as the appellate authority under the aforesaid Act, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. He allowed the appeal of the respondent No. 1, ordered restoration also in respect of "33 dec. of land conveyed by the Kobala dated 17th January, 1968 in favour of the present petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner obtained the present two Rules.
(3.) The appellate authority in his impugned order in Case No. MP 222 of 1975 has found that the Special Officer did not record in writing the evidence adduced by both parties. But according to the appellate authority the case was to be disposed of according to the summary procedure and, therefore, the Special Officer was not required to record the evidence received by him. It was sufficient that the Special Officer had discussed the points taken by the parties in their statements and had heard the verbal submissions on the impugned order. The appellate authority also upheld the finding of the Special Officer regarding the rate of yield of agricultural produce and the price thereof.;