Dd 9 25.04.2025 WPLRT/44/2019 SRI FELTU SAMANTA VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Mr. Suprabhat Bhattacharya,, Mr. Jamini Kanta Ghosh, Advocates … … For the writ Petitioner Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Aniruddha Sen, Advocates … … For the State Mr. Probay Bhattacharya, Ms. Tanusree Ghosh, Mr. Koushik Roy, Advocates .. ..For the respondent no. 8 1. Order dated November 15, 2018 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in OA 174 of 2013 (LRTT) is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. Writ petition is at the instance of a Bargadar (share cropper). 3. Since the writ petitioner was not paying the share of the crop to the raiyat, a Bhag Chas Case No. 20(K)/2008 was initiated by the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer. In such proceedings, the writ petitioner was found to be a defaulter. Execution Case No. 4/Sadar/2009 was initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar). There also, the writ petitioner did not pay in terms of the original order of the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer. 4. Writ petitioner approached the Tribunal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer as also the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer. Such 2 Original Application was registered as OA No. 174 of 2013(LRTT), which was disposed of by the impugned order. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the order dated July 22, 2008 passed by the Officer under Section 18(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. He submits that, his client did not file any written submission duly affirmed to be taken into consideration. Moreover, his client did pay his share of the crop to the raiyat. 6. State and the private respondent No.8 are represented. 7. We find from the records that, a writing of the writ petitioner is on record stating that he did not cultivate the land in question for the last 12/13 years. Such writing, however, is not affirmed as pointed out on behalf of the writ petitioner. 8. In a proceeding before the Officer under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not applicable stricto senso. Principles, however, apply. There is a written submission which is undisputed by the writ petitioner stating that he did not cultivate the land in question for the last 12/13 years. Field inquiry made at the relevant point of time recorded that, he did not pay the share of crop to the raiyat. 9. On the basis of the Inquiry Report and other documents, Bhag Chas Officer came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner was never a borgadar in respect of the property concerned and his name was erroneously recorded in the Record of Rights as a borgadar. Such finding is not established to be incorrect. 3 10. There is no material infirmity demonstrated on the face of record, with regard to the order passed by the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer as also the Sub-Divisional Officer. Learned Tribunal proceeded on the basis of the records made available to it and arrived at a cogent finding giving reasons. 11. We find no infirmity in such order warranting our interference. 12. WPLRT/44/2019 is, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs. (Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)