Nirmal Das vs Dl and Lro, Mogra-Chinsurah Block

Pratap Kumar Ray, J.—Nobody appears for the petitioners to move this application. Earlier the matter was adjourned fourth times.

The matter is taken up for ex parte hearing.

The impugned order dated 1st April, 2003 passed in O.A. No. 18 of 2003 (LRTT) by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal reads such:-

1.4.2003. - Heard both sides.

The petitioners challenge a notice issued on 1.11.2003 on the ground that on earlier occasion a similar notice was issued and the matter was disposed of in Case No. 70/78 in a proceeding u/s 14T(3) of the L.R. Act.

It is further submitted by the Ld. Lawyer for he applicants that in view of the decision in Anil Baran Nandy vs. State of West Bengal by His Lordship Hon''ble Mr. Justice N.K. Mitra reported in 1992 (1992) 2 CHN 32 holding that a Revenue Officer u/s 14T (3) of the L.R. Act can suo motu revise an order u/s 14T(3A) of the L.R. Act determining the ceiling of the land either within 30 days from the date of such determination or before the date of disposal of the appeal preferred against such determination or before the date of dismissal of the appeal preferred against such determination but not otherwise or not beyond that period.

In view of decision of the Hon''ble Division Bench of the High Court in Probhat Kr. Das vs. State, AIR 1994 NDC 87, the decision of a Single Bench in Anil Baran Nandy vs. State, 1992(2) CHN 32 filed by the Ld. Lawyer for the applicants stands overruled. It has been clearly observed by the Division Bench that for redetermination of ceiling limit u/s 14T (3A) the Revenue Officer can issue a proper notice and even if such notices were issued after five years of the disposal of the case in 1985 the Division Bench approved the above action of the Revenue Officer as strictly legal. So, it is crystal clear that there is no period of limitation for invoking the provision of sub-section 3A of section 14T (3) of the L.R. Act by the Revenue Officer when such power can be invoked suo motu.

The Ld. Advocate refers to the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act but in view of the clear decision of the Hon''ble Division Bench the question of limitation does not arise in a proceeding started suo motu by the Revenue Officer u/s 14T (3) of the L.R. Act.

In view of the above decision of the Hon''ble Division Bench of the Calcutta High court, the Revenue Officer has made no mistake or committed any illegality in issuing a notice dated 1.11.2002 for redetermination of the ceiling of land to which the raiyat''s family is entitled.

The Revenue Officer, however, will be at liberty to issue a fresh notice u/s 14T (3A) of the L.R. Act. Although the Revenue Officer in the impugned notice has not mentioned the proper provisions of the L.R. Act but that does not mean that it is an illegal notice. It can be safely said that the Revenue Officer intended to issue a notice u/s 14T (3A) of the L.R. Act for the purpose of revision of the earlier proceeding.

Be that as it may, the Revenue Officer shall issue a fresh notice u/s 14T (3A) of the L.R. Act for redetermination of ceiling after giving due notice to the applicants and all other persons interested in the land and keeping in view of the section 14K (C) (v) of the WBLR Act and decide the same afresh in accordance with law within a period of six months from the ate of communication of this order.

The matter thus stands disposed of...

In view of finding made by learned Tribunal below and having regard to the statutory provision of section 14T (3A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, we are of the view that there is no time limit to initiate a proceeding suo motu by Revenue Officer. As such, there is no scope to interfere with the order impugned.

The writ application accordingly stands dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

Registry is directed to communicate this order to the petitioners.

Md. Abdul Ghani, J.

I agree