They got embankment raised around the land.
Layek Jangal jungle outside and there was numberwater at all.
134 and 144 within Mouza Kishorimohanpore, J.L. No.
168 as Tank Fishery being used for pisciculture and by operation of s. 6 1 e of West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act 1 of 1954, for short the Act stand excluded from its purview.
9 and 10 in the year 1359 B.S. i.e. 1952 A.D. Thereafter they have been cultivating pisciculture in the said lands.
The present Days Plots Nos.
Settlement Officer companysidered the entire evidence on record in great detail like Civil Court and held that the three witnesses examined in proof of the respond ents companyducting pisciculture in the disputed plots of lands are interested and brought up witnesses for the detailed reasons given in support thereof the respondents did number produce the report of the Junior Revenue Officer who direct ed to accept the rents from the respondents.
2202, 2239, 2225, 2232, 2204, 22 10, 2234, 22 14.
He admitted that adjacent to these plots there were two plots, namely, plot Nos.
The reason given by the Asstt.
In the settlement plan map the plots were number classified as pisciculture.
Settlement Officer is based on the evidence given by Mr. Dutta, who on personal inspection, found that the lands remained in the same companydition from the date of vest ing till date of his inspection in the year 1968.
2202, 2232, 2204, 2214, 2236, 2239, 2228 and 2226 either existing or drained in those plots.
There is numberevidence whether these plots of lands having been mentioned in that application.
In the fields survey the property was recorded in their name as the occupiers.
The State filed the writ petition and the High Court, as stated earlier, dis missed the writ petition in limine.
2228, 2229, 2232, 2233, 2236 and 2239 within that Mouza.
Yadavpur Settlement was examined.
District Judge, Alipore under s. 44 3 of the Act which by Judgment dated March 4, 1971 in E.A. No.
The Asstt.
The Tehsildar had numberbusiness to write on the receipt for pisciculture, number record of enquiry made by Junior Land Revenue Officer in this regard was produced.
He also made local enquiries from other persons in the neighbourhood and they testified to the same fact.
1422 of 1973 From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.1971 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Order No.
Plot Nos.
168, P.S. Jaynagar were recorded in the final Khaitan Nos.
23 should be deleted and instead the classification of plots Nos.
Plot Nos.
Admittedly, in 1954 the Khasra enquiry was companyducted in the presence of the respondents.
Recording in companyumn No.
Admittedly, fishery was carried out in plot Nos.
23 to the effect pisciculture in plot Nos.
The existence of salt manufacturing companypany shows that there was salt water on the disputed lands.
They filed their written objections and appeared through companynsel.
2201, 2234 should be recorded as pond, 22 14 and 2226 should be recorded as Danga.
The objections raised by the respondents are that the lands originally belong to Smt.
No documentary evidence except the solitary receipt which was rejected by the Asstt.
The report of the Tehsildar directing payment of the land revenue was number produced.
The Appellate Tribunal has reversed the findings without companysidering the validity of the reasons recorded by the Asstt.
49 of 1968 in one paragraph with cryptic order assuming the role of an administrator reversed the order of the A.S.O. The companyclusions, without discussing the evidence recorded by the Appellate Judge are that in the C.S. Khatain he found that these lands were recorded as Layek Jungle Vitar and Bahir, doba pukur and Khal.
It may be stated at this juncture that though Mr. Dutta was subjected to gruelling cross examination at great length on the nature of pisciculture and characterstics etc.
He had gone through the R.S. Map and from the map he found numbersign of jungle as against the disputed lands.
This finding was number disputed by the appellate Judge.
Settlement Officer and companyfirmed the original classification.
Settlement Officer was produced to show that any pisciculture was being companyducted.
2201 and 2235, it was likely that the loan application would relate to those plots.
When they approached the Junior Land Revenue Officer for receipt of the rents, after due enquiry by endorsement dated April 30, 1958 A.D., the Tehsildar made an endorsement on the body of the receipt for Pisciculture.
Accordingly, he drew up the proceedings under s.44 2A of the Act, issued numberice to the respondents who are brothers, intermediaries.
The Asstt.
Those findings were number challenged at any time.
The attestation took place in July 1959, i.e. after seven years from 1359 B.S. 1952 the year so settlement and three years from the date of starting the so called fishery.
The Junior Land Revenue Officer found on May 11, 1958 after inspection the existence of fishery.
The findings recorded in the relevent companyumns are that numberpisciculture or fishery was being carried on except in two plots i.e. 2201 and 2235 which are number subject matter of enquiry but are situated adjacent to these lands.
On account of the injunction issued by the High Court the attestation in the original settlement was number effected.
This finding was also number companytradicted in the cross examination of Mr. Dutta, though he was subjected to gruelling cross examination.
He did number find any water in plot Nos.
They were company ducting fishery in a large scale.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Settlement Officer after companysideration of the entire evidence found that the respondents claimed to have started fishery after obtaining settlement from landlady in the year 1952, they admitted that Khasra enquiry was companyducted in the year 1954 1361 S. in their presence and examined witnesses.
2201 and 2235.
With a view to develop the land they applied for the loan to the Chief Minister on May 25, 1955.
The Enquiry Officer did number enter in the Khasra record that any pisci culture was being carried on in any disputed plots except plot Nos.
Accordingly he set aside the order of the Asstt.
It is, therefore, clear that in the Khasra enquiry it was number recorded that the suit plots are fishery and in numbere of the plots it was recorded that any pisciculture was being company ducted.
Settlement Officer has carefully assessed the evidence and recorded the findings.
Against this there is numberrebutting evidence adduced by the State.
An endorsement on the application was made by the companycerned Secretary.
That shows that there exists fishery in the disputed land.
He stated that there was water within those days plots , but he did number find any sign of pisciculture therein.
There was numberconnection whatsoever of those plots with river or big canals.
The Asstt.
Shri Roy, the learned St. Counsel appearing for the State companytended that the Asstt.
2206, 2239, 2229, 2225, 2212, 2219, 2220 are small Dobas i.e. ponds and he did number find any sign of pisciculture in those plots.
With regard to making an application to the Chief Minis ter the companyy has number been produced.
143 and 144 of J.L. No.
2201 and 2235 which are linked up with river Alian Khal with tide but they are number part of lands in dispute.
On the other hand he numbered that there is numberfishery in any of those plots except those two specified plots.
Sri Atul Kumar Sahoo, one of the respondents, when was examined as a witness admitted it.
2202, 2204, 2206.
The receipt given by the Tehsildar is obviously to accommodate the respondents.
When the miscreants sought to disturb the embark ments, they made a companyplaint to the police, who initiated action in this regard.
Serial Nos.
There is numbersufficient proof of laying any road to carry the fish from the said plots.
They have been companyducting fishery business.
Danga elevated land Layek Jangal Bheter like jungle inside .
as regards the existence of the companydition of the lands at the time of his inspection and that he did number find any trace of carrying pisciculture, numbercross examination was directed number was suggested to the companytrary.
Except the receipt issued by the Tehsildar, numberdocumentary evidence of payment of rent has been produced.
Hal Kha tian Nos.
What was produced is only receipt on the body of which an endorsement for pisciculture was made by the Tehsildar.
Settlement Officer in rejecting the receipts was that there was numberneed for the Tehsildar to write for pisciculture and that was number the practice.
2202, 2204, 2236 and 2228 should be recorded as Layek Jungle Outside.
1826 of 1971 dismissing the writ petition in limine.
One salt manufacturing companypany was in occu pation of the disputed land before the respondents took settlement from the original landlady.
The material facts are that the lands of Hal Plot Nos.
2236, 2228 and 2226 in.
Agricultural Income tax Department levied on them income tax relying on pisciculture being done by the respondents.
The vesting of plots under the Act took place in the year 1955 56.
C. Ray, G.S. Chatterjee and D.P. Mukherjee for the Appel lant.
They had applied to the Chief Minister Dr. B.C. Roy for a loan of Rs.25,000.
1826 of 1971.
Therefore, it shows that on the date of vesting there exists fishery in the lands.
2202 and 2209 should be record ed as Layek Jungle Outside plot Nos.
2209, 2210, 2212, 2214, 2219, 2220.2225.
2202, 2204, 2206, 2209, 2210, 2212, 2214, 2219, 2220, 2225.
Settlement Officer initiated suo moto proceedings on May 14, 1968 that they have number been properly classified and prima facie require companyrection of classifications of those lands.
2209, 2229, 2206, 22 12, 22 19, 2233 and 2220 should be deleted.
Local witnesses who were examined support the exist ence of fishery for a pretty long time.
Against this order an appeal was filed before the Tribu nal IXth Addl.
K. Chatterjee, Ranjan Mukherjee, N.R. Choudhary, Somnath Mukherjee and P.K. Moitra for the Respondents.
They also filed the documents, examined three witnesses apart from themselves.
Mr. K. Dutta examined on behalf of the State stated that he made local inspection on April 11.
Since, admittedly, the respondents are having fishery in plot Nos.
136 of the Constitution arises against the order dated July 5, 1971 made by the Calcutta High Court in Civil Order No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. This appeal by special leave under Art.
2226, 2228, 2229, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236 and 2239 of Mouza Kisho rimohanpore, J.L. No.
It has taken irrelevant factors or number existing factors into account and thereby the find ings recorded by the Appellate District Judge is based on numberevidence.
Banodamayee Dasi, Superior Landlady, who granted to them dakhilas Nos.
Settlement Officer.
On behalf of the State one Mr. Ranjit Kumar Dutta, Revenue Officer.
22 10, 2209, 2233 and 2234 are blind canals.
168, P.S. Jaynagar as recorded as Ghert and piscicul ture in companyumn No.
1968 A.D. and found recorded the class of land in 18 days plots .
2201 and 2235, but outside the disputed lands wherein pisciculture was being carried out in those plots at the time of inspection.
Only two plots i.e. 2201 and 2235 were classified as pisci culture.
He also stated that the people examined by him have stated that till date the lands remained in the same companydition.
The total extent of the disputed land is about 550 Bighas.
Though the settlement was stated to have been obtained from the Principal Landlady in the year 1952 1359 B.S. , they did number produce any pre or post settlement records for the period upto 2955 56, the year of vesting, to establish that the disputed lands are recorded as tank fishery.
