1

22.03.12

5/akd

W.P.L.R.T. 18 of 2012

Mr. Dipankar Pal,

Mr. Partha Sarathi Ghosh

... ... for the petitioner

Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee,

Mr. Bitasok Banerjee

... ... for the respondent

No. 6

Mr. Chandi Charan De,

Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay

... ... for the State

The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 21st September, 2011 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in case No. O.A. 1952 of 2009 whereby the said learned Tribunal rejected the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner herein on merits.

The petitioner herein approached the learned Tribunal for restraining the respondents herein from disturbing the said petitioner to peacefully cultivate the lands in question. The petitioner claimed himself as the Bargadar in respect of the lands in question and submitted that he was illegally evicted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rampurhat namely, the respondent No. 3 herein. From the records we find that the officer specially empowered under Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 by the order dated 11th June, 2008 passed in Bhagchas Case No. 26/2008 terminated and evicted the Bargadar concerned 2

namely, the petitioner herein w.e.f. 31st Chaitra, 1415 B.S.

Thereafter, steps were taken for execution of the aforesaid order by initiating the Execution Case being B.C. Exe. No. 5/2008 when the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rampurhat took steps for execution of the said order. Ultimately, the order was executed and execution report for giving possession of the lands to the Decree holder was submitted by Nazir before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rampurhat, and the said Sub-Divisional Officer, Rampurhat, recorded the same in the order dated 15th May, 2009 passed in B.C. Case No. 05/2008 as hereunder:

"15/5/09 Execution report of giving possession of lands to the Decree holder is received

from Nazir.

Seen the execution report and satisfied. Therefore, the case is disposed of.

Inform B.L.&L.R.O. concerned accordingly. Sd/-

S.D.O., Rampurhat"

The petitioner herein admittedly, did not deliver the share of crops to the landowner since 2006. However, after the execution of the order by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rampurhat, in Bhagchas Execution Case No. 5/2008, an application was filed by the petitioner herein before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal on 24th August, 2009 wherein the said petitioner prayed for restraining the respondents from disturbing the cultivation of the lands by the petitioner herein.

3

Most surprisingly, the petitioner herein prayed before the learned Tribunal for restraining the respondents from disturbing the possession and peaceful cultivation of the lands by the said petitioner even after execution of the order of the Bhagchas Officer relating to eviction of Bargadar and submission of execution report before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Rampurhat by the Nazir concerned on 15th May, 2009 after delivery of possession of lands to the Decree holder.

In any event, it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein did not challenge the order passed by the officer specially empowered under Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 on 11th June, 2008 in Bhagchas Case No. 26/2008 whereby the said officer terminated and evicted the Bargadar concerned namely, the petitioner herein from the lands in question. After eviction of the Bargadar namely, the petitioner herein from the lands in question, concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer corrected the record of rights in respect of the lands in question prior to June, 2010. Thereafter, the then landowner namely, the respondent No. 6 herein sold out the entire lands to different persons by executing sale deeds. First of such sale deed was executed by the respondent No. 6 on 13th August, 2010 and thereafter, the other sale deeds were executed.

4

The new owners in respect of the lands in question had no knowledge about the alleged claim of the petitioner as Bargadar in respect of the lands in question specially when the said petitioner was evicted as Bargadar from the lands in question by the officer specially empowered under Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and the competent authority namely, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rampurhat executed the said order and execution report after delivery of possession of the lands in question was submitted by the Nazir on 15th May, 2009 i.e. long before the execution of the sale deeds by the respondent No. 6. The new owners cannot be asked to induct the petitioner as Bargadar in respect of the lands in question specially when the Bargadarship of the said petitioner was terminated by the competent officer under the Statute. Furthermore, the erstwhile landowner namely, the respondent No. 6 herein also had no knowledge about the proceeding initiated by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal since the notice in connection with the aforesaid proceeding initiated before the said learned Tribunal was served upon the said respondent No. 6 by the learned Advocate of the petitioner only on 5th February, 2011 i.e. after the execution of the sale deeds by the respondent No. 6. Since the petitioner herein did not even challenge the original order of eviction passed by 5

the competent authority namely, the officer specially empowered under Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, no relief could be granted to the said petitioner by the learned Tribunal specially when the said order was duly executed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rampurhat and execution report was submitted by the Nazir concerned after handing over possession of the lands in question to the then landlord on 15th May, 2009. The learned Advocate of the petitioner today submitted a letter of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Mayureswar-I addressed to the District Land and Land Reforms Officer and Additional District Magistrate, Birbhum dated 10th February, 2011 wherein certain alleged irregularities in respect of the proceedings initiated before the Bhagchas Officer with regard to the termination of Bargadarship of the petitioner have been mentioned. The aforesaid alleged irregularities cannot be taken note of by this court at this stage specially when the original order passed by the Bhagchas Officer terminating the Bargadarship of the petitioner has not been challenged by the said petitioner even today. Since the respondent No. 6 has sold out the property to the third parties after deletion of the name of the petitioner as Bargadar and correction of the record of rights in respect of the lands in 6

question and furthermore, the said third parties are in no way connected with the proceedings initiated by the petitioner herein, we are of the opinion that the interests of the said third parties namely, the present owners of the lands in question cannot be allowed to be interfered with at this stage by directing any authority to entertain the grievances of the petitioner herein.

The Bargadarship of the petitioner was terminated by the competent authority in view of non-delivery of the share of crops which is a valid ground for terminating the Bargadarship and the competent authority passed appropriate order terminating the Bargadarship of the petitioner for failure to tender the share of the produce to the landowner.

We do not find any error and/or illegality on the part of the concerned Bhagchas officer for terminating the Bargadarship of the petitioner and we also approve the steps taken by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Rampurhat for executing the order passed by the Bhagchas officer.

The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein.

In the aforesaid circumstances, we find no merit in the present application and the same is therefore, dismissed without awarding any costs. 7

Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.)

(Mrinal Kanti Sinha, J.)