under the care and protection of Jyotish Chadra Dutta Roy, by virtue of the deeming provision made in the circular of Refugee Rehabilitation Department, the benefit percolates to the defendants/appellants as well. 11. Refuting such contention of Mr. Mukerjee, Mr. Saptangsu Basu, learned Senior Counsel representing the plaintiffs submits that it is the specific claim of the defendant that the suit property was allotted in the name of Jyotish Chandra Dutta Roy and their mother Bina Pani, since deceased, but they have failed to substantiate the same. On the contrary, from the documentary evidence Exhibit-8 and Exhibit-9, it is evident that the defendant no. 1 was a student of Netrokona College, Mymensingh Bangladesh in the year 1972 even he maintained savings bank account with Sonali Bank of Bangladesh. While adducing evidence as D.W. 1 the defendant has admitted the fact. Exhibit-7, the certified copy of the deposition of defendant no. 1 in C-790/82 dated 13th November, 1982 demonstrates that he was a resident of Bangladesh in the year 1972, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that he was the family member of Jyotish Chandra Dutta Roy in the year 1956 when the physical survey was conducted by the State of West Bengal through Refugee Rehabilitation Department. The land was allotted to the refugees and/or displaced persons as on 1950 and after physical survey, in the year 1956 the names of the members in occupation were registered after physical verification. Since the defendant no. 1 did not leave or was not compelled to leave Bangladesh he cannot be held to be refugee. Therefore no benefit under the scheme can be said to have been percolated upon the defendants.
