86 and 87 of 1971.
156/70 and No.
6,7,13,15 and 24 of Mouza Kailpara within his jurisdiction.
The auction purchaser preferred appeals before the Tribunal appointed for the purpose under Section 443 of the Act being E.A. Nos.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer holding that Section 5B of the Act had numberapplication to raiyati interest.
After 15th April, 1955 or 10th Aprii, 1956, as the case may be, according to the companyflicting views of the High Court , when the raiyati and under raiyati interests came to be vested in the State, numbersale companyld have been held of those interests, and the decree holder would have been required to proceed against the other properties of the judgment debtor.
By this orders dated 8th January, 1971 and 27th January, 1971 respectively passed in the two cases, he directed the companyrection of the record of rights by substituting the names of the original raiyats for the auction purchaser.
Hence, the sales were void.
According to him, incorrect entries were made in favour of the respondent in the record of rights in respect of the said Khatians based on the purchases made by the respondent in auction sales of the Khatians in execution of the decrees for arrears of rent.
Two different cases Case No.
These sales were effected on 6th November, 1954 and 3rd December, 1954 respectively.
Hence, the sales of the raiyati interests in the present case effected on 6th November, 1954 and 3rd December, 1954 were obviously invalid.
The sales were admittedly of the rights of the raiyats, and hence the Assistant Settlement Officer took proceedings for revision the record of rights taking the view that such rent execution sales effected after 1st June, 1954 would be invalid under Section 5B of the Act.
22/70 were respectively initiated in regard to the two properties.
In both these cases, in the record of rights, the name of the respondent auction purchaser was entered as raiyat on the said sales.
Against the decision of the appellant authority, the appellant State of West Bengal approached the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
10, 11 of Mouza Haradhanpore and Khatians Nos.
B. Sawant, J. On 18th December, 1970, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Diamond Harbour, initiated proceedings under Section 442a of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 the Act for revising the finally published record of rights in respect of Khatians Nos.
