Dismissed

Jagat Mahata @ Jagadish Mahata v. Shashanka Kr. Bera & Anr.

Calcutta HC26 Jun 2023CO/631/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revisional application challenging the Trial Court's rejection of a request for a survey investigation into land contiguity. The Court opined that the relevant mouja map could be obtained from the BL & LRO office, finding no justification for interference.

What did the court decide?

The revisional application was dismissed and the impugned order of the Trial Court was affirmed.

Jagat Mahata @ Jagadish Mahata Vs Shashanka Kr. Bera & Anr. — Land Acquisition | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

S/L 12 26.06.2023 Court. No. 29 Suvayan

¶2

CO 631 of 2019

¶3

Jagat Mahata @ Jagadish Mahata Vs. Shashanka Kr. Bera & Anr.

¶4

Mr. Rabindranath Mahato Mr. Aritra Shankar Ray

¶5

…for the petitioner.

¶6

Learned Advocate for the petitioner is present.

¶7

None appears on behalf of the opposite parties.

¶8

The instant revisional application is now taken up for hearing. By filing the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/preemptor has challenged the impugned Order No. 58 dated January 2, 2019 as passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Dantan, District – Mindnapore (West) in Judicial Misc. Case No. 22 of 2012 in a proceeding under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Before the learned Trial Court the present petitioner being the preemptor has prayed for an order of preemption in respect of the suit property claiming that he is the contiguous owner of the suit plot which the opposite party preemptee has denied by filing a written objection in which a hand sketch map has been annexed. Thereafter the present petitioner/preemptor before the learned Trial Court filed an application for appointment of survey pass commissioner for local investigation for ascertaining as to whether the present petitioner’s land is contiguous to the suit plot or not.

¶9

¶10

On perusal of the certified copy of the impugned order, it reveals that learned Trial Court while rejecting the said prayer of the petitioner opined that the main intention of the petitioner/preemptor in filing such application for local investigation is to fish out evidence which is not permissible in law.

¶11

In course of his submission, Mr. Ray, however, contending that the said application for local investigation has been filed in order to place the correct and actual picture in respect of the claim of the petitioner as made in their preemption application. It is further submitted by Mr. Ray that in the event the petition for local investigation is allowed the same would help the learned Trial Court to come to a logical conclusion of the said case.

¶12

On perusal of the entire materials and after considering the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner it appears to this Court that in order to decide as to whether the present petitioner’s land is situated contiguous to the suit plot of land or not, the same can very well be proved by calling for the relevant mouja map from the office of concerned BL & LRO. In view of such, this Court at this stage finds no justification to interfere with the order impugned.

¶13

Accordingly, the instant revisional application is dismissed.

¶14

As a result the impugned Order No. 58 dated January 2, 2019 as passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior

¶15

¶16

Division) at Dantan, District – Mindnapore (West) in Judicial Misc. Case No. 22 of 2012 is hereby affirmed.

¶17

It is, however, made clear that in the event either the petitioner/preemptor or learned Trial Court is unable to ensure the production of the relevant mouja map in course of trial of J. Misc Case No. 22 of 2012, the present petitioner is at liberty to file similar such application before the learned Trial Court and in the event such application is again filed, learned Trial Court shall dispose of the said application on its merit without holding that the said proposed application is barred under the law of res judicata .

¶18

With the aforementioned observation the instant revisional application being CO 631 of 2019 is dismissed.

¶19

Parties to act on the server copies of this order.

¶20

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities.

¶21

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)

Jagat Mahata @ Jagadish Mahata v. Shashanka Kr. Bera & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagat Mahata @ Jagadish Mahata v. Shashanka Kr. Bera & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Bose Vs Dipti Ndutta and Ors.

Lalchand Biswas Vs Union of India & Ors.

Barun Paul Vs Sanjay Biswas

Ashis Kumar Mukherjee Vs Nanada Gopal Kaibrata and Ors.

Adil Firoz & Ors. Vs Chanchal Ghosh & Anr.

A N Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Smt Gita Law and Ors.