Balaram Baidya vs State of West Bengal

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.—Counsel submits that the petitioner cultivating the land particulars whereof have been given in the petition is unable to harvest the crop because of local hooligans interference. He says that the petitioner needs supply of police guards, and that the police are guilty of inaction.

The question is whether the High Court under Article 226 or the police can decide the questions: whether the petitioner cultivated the land in question, and, if so, whether he has acquired a right to harvest the crop.

The provisions of Chapter 18 of the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Manual, 1991 provide for settlement of disputes regarding cultivation and harvesting. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer is the authority to examine the matter, and all disputes regarding cultivation and harvesting are to be decided according to provisions of the Chapter.

Until it is decided by the appropriate authority that the petitioner is entitled to harvest the crop standing on the land in question, in my opinion, the Writ Court or the police cannot proceed on the basis that he is entitled to harvest the crop. Under Rules 290 and 295 of the Manual the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer empowered to decide the question is also under an obligation to inform the police about any potential dispute?

In this case the petitioner did not approach the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. Neither the Superintendent of Police nor this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 is in a position to decide the questions: whether the petitioner cultivated the land, and, if so, whether he is entitled to harvest the crop. Hence the allegation of inaction is baseless and unacceptable.

With the foregoing observations, the petition is disposed of. No costs. Certified xerox.