) Mrinal Kanti Senapati v. State of West Bengal For & Ors.

: Mr. Gautam Guria, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Advocate & Ld. AGP Ms. Sangeeta Roy, Advocate Hearing & Judgment on : June 11, 2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

Writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2 WPLRT 92 of 2014

Writ petition is directed against an order dated February 11, 2014 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No.1426/2007 (LRTT).

At the behest of the writ petitioner, the writ petition was kept pending since 2014.

By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal concurred with the finding of the appellate authority.

Learned Tribunal also held that, a person in Government service cannot be accepted as bargadar, if he fails to cultivate the lands personally as defined under Section 2(8) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

Learned Tribunal also took note of the concept of personal cultivation and the restriction imposed in Explanation appended to Section 17(6) of the Act of 1955.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the writ petitioner superannuated as an employee of the land reforms department. Writ petitioner claims to be a bargadar during the period of his employment.

Conceptually, a bargadar is a person who actually physically cultivates the land. A person in full time employment with the government cannot be considered to be cultivating the land as he is required to devote his time for the employer.

The issue as to whether or not, Government employee can claim to be a bargadar was answered as against the writ petitioner concurrently by 3 WPLRT 92 of 2014 the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority and the Tribunal.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find no reason to take a view which is contrary to the finding rendered by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order.

Writ petitioner failed to establish that the concurrent finding of fact is perverse.

Writ petitioner failed to establish that despite his full time employment as a Government servant he was able to cultivate the land in question. Writ petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof in such aspect.

In such circumstances, we find no merit in the present writ petition.

WPLRT 92 of 2014 along with all other pending applications are disposed of without any order as to costs.

I agree. (AD) (Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)