01.03.2011 W.P.L.R.T.103 of 2010.

as

Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee,

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy,
Mr. Supratim Dhar.
…..For the Petitioners.

Mr. Fazlul Haque,

Mr. Ziaul Islam.
…..For the State.

Mr. Md. A. Rahaman.

….For the Respondent
No.4.

The petitioner herein is aggrieved by and

dissatisfied with the order passed by the Revenue

Officer concerned on 24th June, 2003 and challenged

the same under Section 9 of the West Bengal

Acquisition of Homestead Land For Agricultural

Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975.

Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, learned Senior

Counsel representing the petitioners submits that the

Revenue Officer concerned by the aforesaid order

dated 24th June, 2003 specifically held that the land in

question did not vest in favour of the petitioners.

Therefore, the dispute has raised as to

whether the land has vested in favour of the

petitioners and such dispute should be settled by

referring the matter to the Collector under Section 9 of

the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for

Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act,

1975. The aforesaid Section 9 of the Act, 1975 is set

out hereunder:

“S.9: Settlement of disputes. –(1) If there is

any dispute on the question as to whether
a land has vested in an occupier under the
provisions of section 4, the matter shall be
referred to the Collector, whose decision
thereon shall be final.

(2) The manner in which the Collector shall

decide the dispute shall be such as may be
prescribed.”

In terms of Section 9, the Collector should

take appropriate decision regarding settlement of the

disputes. In view of the order passed by this Court in

F.M.A.706 of 1988 in the case of Samir Talapatra &

Ors. Vs. Gurupada Dey & Ors., reported in 2000 (1)

CHN 586, the District Land and Land Reforms Officer

should decide the reference under Section 9 of the Act

for settlement of the dispute. The relevant extracts

from the aforesaid judgment of this Court passed in

Samir Talapatra & Ors. (Supra) are set out

hereunder:

“32. Chief Justice Mookherjee has opined

that as the B.L. & L.R.O. is in the position
of a Collector, an appeal from his order
cannot be heard by another person of a
higher rank, who is also a Collector
 because that would necessitate importing
words into the statute. With the greatest of
respect, I am unable to agree. If a person,
who is a deemed Collector passes an order
under Section 4, then a section 9 reference
has to be heard by another Collector and it
would be reasonable if it were to be held
that such later authority should be higher
in rank than the person, who passed the
earlier order.
xxx xxx xxx

35. At the suggestion of the learned

counsel, I have taken note of the fact that
the District Collector is the District
Magistrate, who usually does not hear a
section 9 reference. Thus, the order dated
28.8.95 is set aside. The matter should be
decided afresh by the Additional District
Magistrate and District Land & Land
Reforms Officer …………………………………..”

The aforesaid decision of this Court has not

been considered by the A.D.M & D.L. & L.R.O., Nadia

while deciding the reference filed under Section 9 of

the Act, 1975. The A.D.M. & D.L. & L.R.O., Nadia by

the order dated 13th September, 2004 refused to decide

the disputes referred under Section 9 of the Act, 1975

and disposed of the reference with a direction upon the

petitioners herein to prefer appeal in the appropriate

Court of Law.

The D.L. & L.R.O., Nadia failed to appreciate

that in terms of Section 9 of the aforesaid Act, 1975

and in view of the clear pronouncement of this Court

in Samir Talapatra & Ors. (Supra), the said D.L. &

L.R.O., Nadia has the jurisdiction to decide the

disputes referred under Section 9 of the Act and not

doing so, the said D.L. & L.R.O., Nadia committed an

error.

For the aforementioned reasons, the order

passed by the D.L. & L.R.O., Nadia on 13th September,

2004 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly

quashed.

The West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy

Tribunal also by the impugned judgment and order

dated 7th November, 2006 did not take note of the

aforesaid error committed by the D.L. & L.R.O.

concerned while deciding the reference under Section 9

of the Act, 1975 and erroneously dismissed the

application filed by the petitioners herein.

The aforesaid decision of the learned Tribunal,

therefore, cannot be sustained and the same is

accordingly set aside.

The D.L. & L.R.O., Nadia is directed to decide

the dispute referred under Section 9 of the West

Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural

Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975 afresh

on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of

hearing to the respective parties at an early date

preferably within a period of three months from the

date of communication of this order.

Pending disposal of the aforesaid reference

case by the D.L. & L.R.O., Nadia, parties herein are

directed to maintain status quo as on date with regard

to the possession as well as the nature and character

of the land in question.

This writ petition thus stands allowed.

There will be, however, no order as to costs.

Xerox plain copy of this order countersigned

by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the

appearing parties on usual undertaking.

(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.)

(Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.)