Samim Abbas vs State of West Bengal and Others

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29th April, 2009 passed by the learned Tribunal in Case No. O.A. 264 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the said learned Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Revenue Officer u/s 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

From the records we find that at the instance of the Respondent No. 6 herein, an application was filed earlier before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal being Case No. O.A. 3758 of 2006 which was finally disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 25th January, 2007 by granting liberty to the said Respondent No. 6 to file appropriate application for mutation in respect of the land in question before the concerned authority in accordance with law. Pursuant to such liberty an application was filed before the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned and the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer ultimately passed an order on 17th July, 2007 directing deletion of the remarks "illegal possessor" mentioned in the records in respect of the land in question. Subsequently, the appellate authority also affirmed the aforesaid decision of the Revenue Officer on the ground that name of any person cannot be mentioned in the land records as "illegal possessor". The learned Tribunal also held that no recording can be done as "illegal possessor".

The learned Counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the name of the Petitioner herein was recorded by the Revenue Officer concerned as "illegal possessor" in the year 1978-1979. Such recording in the remarks column cannot be altered by the subsequent Revenue Officer. The learned Counsel of the Petitioner relies on the decision of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Adinath Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, and also of the Division Bench in the case of Debabrata Tripathy and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, in support of his arguments.

The aforesaid decisions, in our opinion, are not at all applicable in the facts of the present case. This Court in the aforesaid decisions considered a different issue on the different set of facts which are not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the issues raised herein. The Revenue Officer is the prescribed authority for maintenance of the upto date record of rights in respect of the lands under his jurisdiction. In the present case, the Revenue Officer while considering the application for mutation filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 6 herein, found that the name of the nephew of the erstwhile deceased recorded owner of the land in question Sahela Khatoon has been, illegally mentioned in the remarks column of the records as "illegal possessor". On detection of the aforesaid illegal noting in the remarks column in respect of the land in question, the Revenue Officer deleted the same as, according to the Revenue Officer, there is no provision under the Statute to record name of any person in the land records as "illegal possessor" against the raiyati khatian. The appellate authority also affirmed the aforesaid findings of the Revenue Officer. The learned Tribunal did not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the aforesaid decision of the Revenue Officer which was subsequently affirmed by the appellate authority. We also do not find any provision in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, which authorises a Revenue Officer to record name of any person as "illegal possessor" in respect of a particular land in the land records. The Revenue Officer being the prescribed authority for maintaining upto date record of rights in prescribed manner in respect of the lands under his jurisdiction is, therefore, authorised and empowered to correct and/or delete any illegal noting recorded in respect of any land at any point of time after detection of such illegal noting. In the instant case, upon detection of the aforesaid illegal recording of the name of one Samim Abbasi as "illegal possessor" in respect of the lands in question, the Revenue Officer has rightly passed the order directing deletion of his name from the records since no name can be recorded under the Statute in the land records as "illegal possessor". The Revenue Officer, in our opinion, on detection of illegal noting, has rightly rectified the same u/s 50 of the Land Reforms Act being the prescribed authority for maintenance of the upto date record of rights of the lands under his jurisdiction.

We, therefore, affirm the decision of the Revenue Officer which was rightly upheld subsequently by the appellate authority and the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

In the facts of the present case, there will be, however, no order as to costs.

Let xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.