Uncategorized

This is a Case-Study of a unique incident involving me in Murshidabad District when I was the District Magistrate in 1983-84. On the basis of my records and those of the affected Block Development Officer Srimanta Sen, the case was prepared by him and Supriya Ghoshal who was posted as faculty in the Administrative Training Institute of the Govt. of West Bengal. The Case has been run in training course and vetted as meeting the standards.

1. Murshidabad District with its Headquarters at Berhampore, located almost in the middle of West Bengal, is a very important District of the State with 26 community development blocks-cum-panchayat samitis. It had 3 Members of Parliament in the Lok Sabha (2 from the CPIM and 1 from the RSP) and 19 MLAs (8 CPIM, 5 each RSP and Congress and 1, the sole lady, from Forward Block). During the early eighties due to emergence of the new Panchayat system following the panchayat elections of 1978 the relationship between government officials and elected representatives at the cutting-edge levels was deteriorating in all the districts of the state. Murshidabad was no exception. After the second panchayat elections in 1983 this relationship was further strained and, in many cases, ended in assault of the government officers by the Panchayat functionaries and their allies and the transfer of those officers. In Murshidabad during 1982-83 there were 11 such incidents where either the Block Development Officer (BDO), or the Junior Land Reforms Officer (JLRO) or the Agriculture Development Officer (ADO) was the victim. Being posted in remote areas they were becoming soft targets whenever they stood in the way of corrupt practices or tried to implement the declared policy of the Central and State governments impartially. Since the introduction of the community development programme in the late 1950s the nature of work at the block level had undergone a sea-change. Under the Community Development Programme, developmental work was related mostly to agricultural extension as the focus of the first five year plan was on food security. After the establishment of the three-tier Panchayat-system multifarious developmental work came under the purview of the Block and consequently the volume of work increased considerably.

2. Raninagar Block, situated in the eastern side of the river Ganges, is about 42 kms from the district headquarters Berhampore. A great portion of Raninagar Block is very fertile due to regular deposition of alluvium by the river Bhagirathi. Rice, jute, wheat and pulses are the main crops of the area. Smuggling is a constant problem.

3. After the second Panchayat election in May, 1983, the Raninagar Panchayat Samiti was formed by the ruling left parties. Five Gram Panchayats (GP) out of nine belonged to the ruling parties and the remaining four to the Congress. Since the Panchayat election just got over and many new persons were inducted into the system, there was much enthusiasm in the work of Panchayat sector.

4. The BDO was a direct recruit of the 1979 batch of the State Civil Service posted as a probationer in another. His predecessor in Raninagar was transferred by police wireless radiogram and he as the new BDO joined thereafter in June 1981.  The BDO worked hard and maintained good relations with all concerned. The District Magistrate took charge of Murshidabad in September 1983. He belonged to the 1971 batch of the IAS and had returned after six years of service in the Government of India on deputation.

5.An allotment of 800 units of Wheat mini-kits (seeds for sowing) were received in Raninagar Block from the Principal Agricultural Officer (PAO), Murshidabad, under his order dated 25-10-1983 for the winter season for distribution among the marginal and poor farmers of the block. A meeting of the Krishi-Sech-o-Samabay Sthayee Samiti (KSSS, standing committee on agriculture, irrigation and cooperation) of Raninagar Panchayat Samiti (see appendix–I) was convened on 9-11-1983 for taking a resolution on distribution of these mini-kits. In the meeting, which the BDO could not attend on account of some urgent official work at district headquarters, 800 mini kits were sub-allotted to the 9 GPs and it was resolved that the Karmadhyaksha (chairman of the concerned Standing committee) of that Sthayee Samiti would prepare the beneficiary lists in respect of all the 9 GPs, including the 4 GPs under the Congress party, and the Sabhapati (Chairman) of the PS would approve the lists. The Pradhans of GPs would have no role in the process. According to prevailing norms, the Sthayee Samiti in its meeting was to sub-allot the mini kits to all the GPs and the concerned Pradhans in the meetings of the GPs would prepare and approve the Beneficiary Lists and place these in the meeting of the KSSS for approval after threadbare discussion.

6. Coming to know of this unique resolution, the BDO after a day or two took up the matter with the Sabhapati, Panchayat Samiti (PS) and tried to persuade him not to follow this resolution as this would encroach the democratic rights of the GPs. The Sabhapati turned a deaf ear to this. The BDO immediately took up the matter with the DM who, on the basis of the resolution of the meeting of the District Co-ordination Committee (DCC) held on 09/11/1983 at Berhampore Circuit House, issued orders on 18-11-1983 on how to distribute mini-kits. On the same day, the BDO sent a note to the Sabhapati for arranging distribution of wheat mini-kits according to the orders of the DM. The Sabhapati refused to accept it and used filthy language in respect of the BDO and the DM.

7. In the meantime the Director of Agriculture issued a circular to the district authorities making it mandatory that the distribution of minikits be done by the Panchayat Samitis. The Panchayat Samitis were asked to prepare lists through KSSS. However, in this circular the process of preparation of the list by the KSSS was not mentioned. In many instances it was seen that the Panchayat Samitis prepared the list arbitrarily on their on keeping the GPs, especially those belonging to other political parties, in dark.

In the meeting of the District Coordination Committee (DCC) [set up under Chief Secretary’s order] held on 9.11.83, a question was raised by an MLA regarding the modalities of distribution of wheat mini-kits by the Panchayat Samitis. In reply the Principal Agricultural Officer (PAO) stated that according to the circular, issued by the Director of Agriculture, the list of beneficiaries would be prepared and finalised by the PS and in case the PS failed to finalise it, the list would be prepared by the ADO (erstwhile called ADO). The Sabhadhipati of the Zilla Parishad (ZP) held a different opinion and stated that the GPs in this matter should not be ignored. The GPs are organic limbs of the Panchayat Samitis and should prepare the basic list according to the sub-allotments by the Panchayat samitis through the concerned Sthayee Samiti. The Sthayee Samitis concerned were to approve the list unless there was serious material objection sustained on enquiries by competent officers like ADO. This view was unanimously accepted and resolved in the meeting. (See appendix-IV)

8. It was in pursuance of these decisions of the DCC in which the MPs & MLAs were also present that these guidelines were issued by the DM in consultation ofthe Sabhadhipati of the ZP. The order issued by the DM was aimed at further decentralisation and was based on the earlier resolution taken in the meeting of the DCC.

9. On 21-11-1983 the BDO discussed the matter with the Karmadhyaksha, KSSS, apprised him of the guideline issued by the DM and requested him to follow it in toto in the interest of equity and fairness. The Karmadhyaksha was unwilling to do so.

10. The BDO met the DM on 30-11-1983 and apprised him of the situation. The DM advised him to send a fresh note to both the Sabhapati and the Karmadhyakasha with a request to place the matter before the Sthayee Samiti by 6-12-1983 in view of the advent of the sowing season of wheat.

11. On 1-12-1983, the BDO accordingly sent a fresh note to the Sabhapati and the Karmadhyaksha, which they furiously refused to accept. After returning from the State Bank of India, Lalbagh, which was the Sub-Divisional Headquarters, after encashment of salaries of the Block officials on 1-12-1983, the BDO called over the Agriculture Development Officer (ADO) to discuss the next course of action for distribution of the mini-kits in view of the advent of the sowing season for wheat. 12.While discussion was going on, at about 3 PM about 150 persons, mainly of nearest Raninagar GP, gathered at the Block compound led by the Sabhapati of the PS and the ex-Sahakari Sabhapati (former Vice Chairman) of the Panchayat Samiti and the Chowkidar of the Zilla Parishad Dak Bungalow at Raninagar. They uttered slogans against the so-called non-co-operation of the BDO and the DM in the distribution of wheat mini-kits. They even shouted slogans with filthy abuse:

“Amra DM-er ei chotha manchhi na, manbo na. Amader talika anujayee gom minikit ditey hobey. Naile oi gom DM-O-BDO-r pachhaye pora hobey. BDO-r kalo hat bhenge dao, gunriye dao.”

[We do not and will not accept DM’s scrap of paper. Wheat minikit must be given as per our list. Otherwise that wheat will be shoved into the arse of DM and BDO. Break, crush the BDO’s black hand.]

13.The Sabhapati, the ex-Sahakari Sabhapati and the Chowkidar provoked the mob and directed an attack on the BDO and the ADO. Thereafter, the three along with some of the followers entered the office chamber of the BDO and demanded distribution of wheat mini-kits in pursuance of the unique resolution of the KSSS. The BDO expressed his inability in view of the guideline issued by the DM and requested them to abide by the DM’s order for the sake of equity and fairness. They paid no heed, went on shouting slogans as above and stuck to their demand. The three went on abusing the officers, hindering the administrative work and gheraoed the BDO and ADO. Suddenly, at the instigation of the Sabhapati, the ex-Sahakari Sabhapati and the Chowkidar, the mob began to assault the ADO and the BDO physically. One follower hit the ADO on his back. The ADO fell down on the table. The BDO was heckled and physically assaulted by the mob being provoked by the three. The BDO along with the ADO were forced to sign the distribution list prepared by the Sabhapati under duress. (see- Appendix-V, FIR of the BDO)

14. After this, they dispersed shouting the same slogans. The BDO and the ADO were traumatised after the incident. They were physically hurt, mentally bruised and felt unwell. In the meantime, evening was drawing near and gradually darkness fell.

15. On 2-12-1983, the BDO and the ADO went to the Sub-divisional Headquarters at Lalbagh. The SDO, a 1970 batch West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) [WBCS (Exec)] cadre officer, was out of Headquarters. The BDO spoke to the DM over phone from Lalbagh. The DM sent the District Panchayat Officer (DPO) and a F.I.R. was drafted. The BDO and the DPO went to Raninagar Thana and lodged the FIR. No action was taken by the Officer–in-Charge (O.C.) to arrest the persons named in the FIR. In view of this, the DPO informed the DM of the situation. The same night the DM and the SP (a West Bengal Police Service officer promoted to the Indian Police Service) came to Raninagar Thana.

16.The DM asked the SP to arrest immediately the persons named in the FIR. The police officers rushed out and came back with the Sabhapati first. The SP charged the Sabhapati with assaulting the BDO and the ADO, obstructing the discharge of duty by government servants and abusing the DM and the BDO in filthy language. The Sabhapati denied the charges, saying he was an M.A. passed person. The BDO confirmed that he was the very person who along with the ex-Sahakari Sabhapati and the Chowkidar instigated their followers to assault the BDO and the ADO physically and uttered such filthy language. The Sabhapati was then arrested. Then, one by one, the other two were brought in and arrested in the presence of the DM and the SP.

17. The arrest of a leading Panchayat functionary like the Sabhapati and a local leader who was a whole-timer of the ruling party and the ex-Sahakari Sabhapati caused a great commotion. The arrested persons were produced in the court at Lalbagh the next day but they refused to take bail as a tactic of creating pressure on the administration and drawing sympathy from the public in general. Different measures for showing protest were taken. One of these measures was a call for Raninagar Thana Bundh on 6-12-1983.

18. In view of the commotion, measures for maintenance of peace were taken by the administration. The appropriate number of police personnel was stationed under an Executive Magistrate to tackle the situation. The Bundh activists became unruly and looted shops mainly owned by Congress supporters at different places including Shaikhpara. During the reckless loot, some persons sustained injuries. In spite of their best efforts, the magistrate and police could not prevent this from happening.

19. The Sabhapati and the Sahakari-Sabhapati finally accepted bail just before this outbreak of violence. The ex-Sahakari Sabhapati was suspended from service as a school teacher, having been in police custody for over 48 hours.

20. From March 1982 to December 1983 11 BDOs and AEOs (the earlier nomenclature of ADO) in Murshidabad district were assaulted on duty. All the major political parties were involved and because of the greater number of the ruling party people, most of the assaults were by them.

21. Both the service associations of WBCS (Exec) officers presented deputations to every DM and Sabhadhipati in the State. The WBCS Association also met the Minister for Panchayats and Land Reforms, who was the second man in the cabinet, to express their grievances over the issue and demanded justice.

22. The Secretary of the WBCS (Executive) Association wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary. In this he said “Nobody is willing to work as a BDO in the district.… If ‘BDO bashing’ turns out to be the latest political pastime, and the Government does not take any preventive measures, the Administration will be a mockery.”

23. The BDO received information through his reliable source that a meeting had been held at Raninagar Dak Bungalow under the leadership of the Chowkidar who was a local leader and a terror. It had been conspired that they would attack the BDO on his way back to his Sultanpur residence in the evening with bombs, ingredients for which were already in their possession.

24. The BDO informed the DM and the SP and the latter ordered the Circle Inspector, Paranpur (Raninagar thana was under his jurisdiction), to arrest the criminals with the arms and ammunition which were reportedly in their possession and keep the miscreants under close surveillance. As a result of the drive, some ingredients of bombs were recovered from them and legal action was initiated.

25.In spite of the incident of assault, the BDO tried to remain cool and carried on the day-to-day and the developmental works of the Block. Raninagar Panchayat Samiti called a meeting on 17-1-1984 to move a resolution against the BDO. The agenda included the following:-

1. That the BDO tampered with papers relating to relief during the last flood and acted against the decision of the Sabhapati and thereby resorted to malpractices.
2. That the BDO by distributing wheat Mini-kits amongst the farmers in his administrative capacity at a belated period in collaboration with the ADO did harm to wheat cultivation in the Block and violated the decision of the concerned Sthayee Samiti.
3. That the BDO caused the arrest of the Sabhapati, the ex-Sahakari Sabhapati of the Panchayat Samiti and the Chowkidar of ZP Dak Bungalow on the basis of false case.
4. That accordingly, let the BDO be recalled by the Government as per provisions of the Section 119(1) of The W.B. Panchayat Act, 1973 (see Appendix- II)

Regarding item no 1 of the Agenda, the BDO’s point was that he tampered with no documents and did not resort to any malpractice while distributing relief to the affected persons in the last flood. Only modified arrangements to some extent were done on emergency basis in view of the fact that the number of affected persons taking shelter in the relief camps was more than expected. This was done purely on administrative grounds to tackle the emergency in the interest of public service.

Regarding item no 2, the BDO’s point was that as the Panchayat functionaries failed to distribute wheat mini-kits among the poor and marginal farmers of the Block as per the DM’s guideline, the BDO arranged to distribute these departmentally through administrative personnel like Krishi Prajukti Sahayak (KPS) etc. with the active cooperation of the ADO on the basis of departmental data, as the sowing season for wheat had already set in.

26. After-effects of the Notice:

1. From Panchayat Samiti Members: Most of the members of the Panchayat Samiti, including village Pradhans belonging to ruling party, contacted the BDO and stated that he had done no wrong and accordingly they were with him. They also assured him that they would remain absent on 17-1-1984 and hence the recall resolution would not be passed.
2. From the WBCS Officers and the ADO: It was decided in the meeting of the WBCS Association that if the BDO of Raninagar was removed on recall by the Government on the basis of the resolution, no BDO would join at Raninagar Block. In addition, SATSA (the State Agricultural and Technologists Association) joined hands with WBCS Association and both the associations jointly warned that if such a trend of assaults on BDOs and AEOs continued, they would be compelled to go on strike. Their feelings were conveyed also to the Minister for Panchayats.

27. At the given time the BDO with the Extension Officer (Panchayat) [EO(P)] (see Appendix- I) attended the meeting. There was full participation by members belonging to the Congress party, but members from the ruling party side were very few. There was a quorum, but the Sabhapati sensed the trouble ahead and in spite of the quorum postponed the meeting on “indispensable grounds”. The BDO recorded his note of dissent that in spite of there being a quorum, the meeting was postponed without showing any cogent reason.

28. Notice was issued fixing the date for holding the postponed meeting on 2-2-1984. This time the party issued a whip on the members of the Panchayat Samiti belonging to the ruling Front to attend the meeting definitely. It also decided to keep all such members in the ZP Dak Bungalow at Raninagar on the night of 1-2-1984 so that none could be absent on any excuse.

29. Most of the Panchayat Samiti members belonging to the ruling party contacted the BDO, expressed their helplessness this time in view of the whip, and requested the BDO to fight on his own.

30. As per decision of the party, almost all the Panchayat Samiti members belonging to the ruling party stayed the night at the Dak Bungalow at Raninagar. They came to the Panchayat Samiti meeting hall in a procession led by the MP with the MLA at the tail, shouting the slogans as already mentioned. In all 33 members, of which 19 were from the ruling party and 14 from the Congress, attended the meeting.

31.At the very beginning of the meeting, the Sabhapati took out a paper from his pocket, read out the agenda and requested the members to raise their hands in support of the decision. Members belonging to the Congress demanded threadbare discussion on every item of the agenda. The Sabhapati referred to agenda no. 3 that the BDO caused the arrest of the Sabhapati, the ex-Sahakari Sabhapati of the Panchayat Samiti and the Chowkidar of ZP Dak Bungalow on the basis of a false case. Then the Sabhapati again requested members to raise their hands in support of the decision of recalling the BDO by the Government.

32. At this BDO submitted that he had to say something on his part. The MP, who is an ex-officio member of the Panchayat Samiti (see appendix- I), argued that it was a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti and as an Executive Officer the BDO had nothing to do but to act upon the decisions taken by them. The MP further stated that BDO was, therefore, not allowed to say anything in the meeting and if he desired to submit something, he would have to show the relevant provisions of law, if any.

The BDO then and there consulted the WB Panchayat Act, 1973 and drew the attention of the meeting to section 108 which ran, “The Block Development Officer shall attend meetings of the Panchayat Samiti and shall participate in the deliberations thereof”.

At this, the members belonging to the Congress submitted that the MP was also an advocate and naturally knew the law well. They claimed that the MP, fully knowing what the law actually was, wanted to get wrong decisions passed against the BDO by not letting him speak. They said that this was tantamount to an insult to the House and as such he would have to beg pardon of the House. Having no alternative, the MP apologised to the House. The BDO refuted all the allegations levelled against him.

Then the Sabhapati again requested members to raise their hands in support of the decision and the 19 members belonging to the ruling party raised their hands while 14 members belonging to Congress went against the decision. They recorded a note of dissent that all the allegations were bogus and all the agenda items were not discussed at all. The BDO also recorded his note of dissent as to how the decision was taken without discussion of all the agenda items.

33. The MP recorded his note of dissent on a remark passed by the BDO during the discussion that the majority does not always speak the truth. The BDO had pointed out in the meeting how only a few like Raja Rammohan Roy and Lord William Bentinck realised the bad consequences of the Suttee system, while most of the people took it as sacred and beneficial to society.

34.The BDO was requested by the House to send a copy of the resolution to the Chief Minister, the Minister–in-charge (MIC), Panchayat and others for immediate implementation of the proposal. Some copies of the resolution were made ready and that very evening BDO met the DM who sent a copy to the Chief Secretary forthwith along with a report on how the resolution was adopted. Other copies were forwarded to the intended persons in due course.

35. SDO Lalbagh was directed by the DM to carry out a thorough enquiry into the incident of assault on the BDO and the ADO and was also requested to find out the facts of the allegation made against the BDO by the Panchayat Samiti. Accordingly the enquiry was conducted and report was submitted on 15.1.1984. As many as 21 persons were interrogated who witnessed the incident. Among the persons interrogated were the Sabhapati and other Panchayat functionaries, the BDO, ADO and 12 members of the staff of the Block and Panchayat Samiti office. As per the report, the presence of the Sabhapati, the ex-Sahakari-Sabhapati and the Chowkidar and their taking leading part in the incident was established. As regards the allegation against the BDO for malpractice in distribution of relief material, the SDO did not find any anything nor did he come across alteration or tampering in the office record after thorough checking. Other charges against the BDO brought by the Panchayat Samiti were also found to be unsubstantiated.

36.The resolution for recalling the BDO got immense publicity in dailies and periodicals at the State and District levels, being the first such instance in the state. State level dailies like Ananda Bazar Patrika, The Statesman etc. gave wide publicity to the incident of assault on the BDO and the ADO and to the resolution. In addition to the news, editorials were also published supporting the officers assaulted. It was speculated that if similarly under section 166(1) of the WB Panchayat Act 1973 a resolution recalling the Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad (the DM) were adopted by the Zilla Parishad, whether an administrative impasse would result or not.

37.The MP sent a rejoinder to the news item published in “Jugantar” Bengali newspaper on 9.2.1984. This rejoinder was published on 25.2.1984 (a translated copy of this letter is given in appendix – IV). In this he alleged that the conduct of the BDO was against the laid down policy of the government and the BDO had flouted the law. He also spoke in favour of the dismissal of the BDO from government service and implicitly threatened the DM with transfer if he tried to support the conduct of the BDO.

38.TheWBCS Association held a meeting on 8-2-1984 and reviewed the situation arising out of the adoption of the resolution. It requested the Government not to act upon the resolution on the basis of the apprehended administrative crisis. SATSA adopted the same line. In every district there was commotion. The General Secretary of the WBCS Association told a staff reporter of the Bengali daily ‘Anandabazar Patrika’ that, on behalf of the Murshidabad unit of the Association, it was made clear to the DM that if the BDO, Raninagar was transferred, all the BDOs of the district would go on leave for an indefinite period. This was published in that newspaper on 10.2.1984.

39. On 22-2-1984 the Minister for Panchayats, Rural Development and Land Reforms, who was number 2 in the Cabinet, came to Berhampore and met the DM, the SP and the Sabhadhipati (Chairman) of the Zilla Parishad (ZP) to review the situation. He proposed that the administration should withdraw the criminal case and then the matter of retention of the BDO at Raninagar would be looked into. Both the DM and the SP declined and advised that it would be better for the resolution to be withdrawn by the Panchayat Samiti first and then the BDO could be shifted. The Sabhadhipati stated this was impossible. The DM then stated that if the BDO was transferred, the government should transfer the DM and the SP as well. The Minister told the Sabhadhipati in English, “Where there is a will, there is a way”. In view of the stand taken by the DM and the SP, the Government refrained from acting upon the resolution. The Minister held a closed door meeting with the DM, the Sabhadhipati and the Minister of State for Primary Education (who was from Murshidabad district) in which he stressed the need for restoring normal relationship between the panchayat functionaries and the government officials. The DM pointed out that the resolution of the Raninagar Panchayat Samiti was a major impediment in the effort. The Minister told the Sabhadhipati that it was his task to get the resolution withdrawn.

40. There was an assembly question regarding the Raninagar incident which also got elaborate media coverage. Some of the widely circulated state level dailies wrote that in reply to the Assembly question raised by an MLA, the MIC Panchayat and Community Development admitted that the DM Murshidabad had flouted the government order and added that all the DMs were asked not to interpret the government orders and to consult thegovernment in case of any complication. (See Appendix-V and VII)

41. The Chief Minister summoned the Sabhapati later on and rebuked him, as reported by the Sabhapati to the BDO, directed him not to repeat such an incident and requested him to continue working with the BDO and the ADO.

42. In the meantime, the BDO was deeply involved in developmental work. He took the initiative to hold IRDP camps [IRDP- Integrated Rural Development Programme- a scheme for employment generation among the person living below poverty line by utilising bank loan and Govt. subsidy. This was one of the most important self-employment schemes during the 1980s and 1990s. Later it turned into “inko rupiya denahi parega”] and joint inspections with the Sabhapati, the ADO, other Extension officers and Bankers successfully. Even on the day after the BDO gave evidence in Lalbagh Court against the Sabhapati, he went to the village of the Sabhapati and held IRDP joint inspection with him. The court case went on in its own motion and the BDO went on implementing different developmental programmes for the betterment of the standard of life of the poor people. The BDO continued in the same Block up to May 1987 after which he joined Govindapur District Headquarters on general duty.

43. On 3^rd January 1984 a meeting was held at the Zilla Parishad to discuss the policy of distribution of mini-kits. In this meeting the DM, the Sabhadhipati, all the ADMs, the Principal AgricultureOfficer, all the BDOs and Sabhapatis of the district were present. In this meeting, after long deliberations, finally the order framed earlier by the DM formulating the guiding principles of distribution of mini-kits, on the basis of the resolution adopted in DCC meeting, was unanimously accepted.

APPENDIX- I

PANCHAYAT ORGANISATIONAL CHART

ZILA PARISHAD (Uppermost tier at the district level)

Functionaries

Official                                                                                  Peoples’ Representatives

Executive officer (District Magistrate- ex officio)

Additional Executive officer

Secretary (Also the secy of Artha Sthayee Samiti)

Deputy Secretary*

Additional Deputy Secretary**

Engineers

Office Superintendent

Other staff

Directly elected                                                                                               Ex-officio

Office bearers                                                                                Other members

Sabhadhipati            Sahakari-Sabhadhipati       Karmadhyakshas of sthayee samitis 

(Chairperson            (Vice-Chairperson)          (Chairpersons of standing committees) #

and also the ex-officio

karmadhyaksha of

Artha Sthayee samiti)

*,**  Posts created later (in 1990s)

# There are 10 Sthayee Samitis (Standing Committees) in the ZP viz. Artha sanstha unnayan o parikalpana (Finance, Dvelopment & Planning), Krishi sech o samabay (Agriculture), Purta karya o paribahan (Public works), Siksha samaskriti tathya o krira (Education), Janaswasthya o Paribesh (Health), Nari o shishu unnayan janakalyan o tran (Women and Child Development), Khudrashilpa vidyut o achiracharit shakti (Small scale industries and energy) , Bon o bhumisamaskar (Land Reforms), Khadya o sarabarah ( Food and Public Distribution).

NB: Each Sthayee Samiti has several official members apart from the elected members. They are generally drawn from the general administration (like District relief officer) or from the line departments (like Chief Medical Officer etc.) having an official set up at the district level. One of the official members acts as the Secretary of the Sthayee Samiti e.g. the Chief Medical Officer acts as the secretary of Janaswasthya Sthayee Samiti. Only exception is the secretary of the ZP who is the ex-officio secy of the Artha Sthayee Samiti.

PANCHAYAT ORGANISATIONAL CHART

PANCHAYAT SAMITI (Middle tier at the Block level)

                                                                    Functionaries

Official                                                                                  Peoples’ Representatives

Executive officer (Block development officer- ex officio)

Joint Executive Officer (Jt.Block development officer- ex officio)

Secretary (Extension officer for Panchayat – ex-officio)

Other staff

Directly elected members                                                                 Ex-officio members

Office bearers                                                                           Other members

Sabhapati            Sahakari-Sabhapati       Karmadhyakshas of Sthayee samitis 

(Chairperson            (Vice-Chairperson)  (Chairpersons of standing committees) #

and also the ex-officio

Karmadhyakshas of

Artha Sthayee Samiti)

# There are 10 Sthayee Samitis in the PS viz. Artha sanstha unnayan o parikalpana, Krishi sech o samabay, Purta karya o paribahan, Siksha samaskriti tathya o krira, Janaswasthya o Paribesh, Nari o shishu unnayan janakalyan o tran, Khudrashilpa vidyut o achiracharit shakti , Bon o bhumisamaskar, Khadya o sarabarah.

NB: Each Sthayee Samiti has several official members apart from the elected members. They are generally extension officers of the Block or officers of the line departments. One of them acts as the secretary of the Sthayee Samiti. But EO (P) (now designated as PDO – Panchayat Development Officer) is the ex-officio Secretary of the Panchayat Samiti.

PANCHAYAT ORGANISATIONAL CHART

GRAM PANCHAYAT (Lowermost tier at the village level)

                                                                    Functionaries

Official                                                                                  Peoples’ Representatives

Executive Assistant

Secretary

Sahayak

Job-Assistant

Nirman sahayak

Gram Panchayat Karmee

Directly elected members                                                                 Ex-officio members

Office bearers                                                                                Other members

Pradhan                        Upa-Pradhan              Sanchalaks of the Upasamitis 

(Chairperson            (Vice-Chairperson)          (Chairpersons of standing committees) #

and also the ex-officio

sanchalak of Artha upasamiti)

Members of Panchayat Samiti elected from the GP area other than the Sabhapati and Sahakari Sabhapati.     

# Each Gram Panchayat has 5 upasamitis viz. i)Artha o Parikalpana, ii) Shikaha o Janaswastrhya, iii) Krishi o Prani Sampad Bikash, iv) Shilpa o  Parikathamo Sthayee Samiti, v) Nari oShishu Unnayan o samajkalyan. Each upasamiti is headed by one elected member of the Gram Panchayat called ‘Sanchalak’. However, Pradhan of the GP is the ex-officio sanchalak of Artha Upasamiti.

* Post created between 1998 to 2003.

APPENDIX –II (Provisions of the W.B. Panchayat Act, 1973)

a)Removal of the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti

Section 119(1) of the W.B. Panchayat Act, 1973 envisages:

“There shall be an Executive Officer for every Panchayat Samiti and the Block Development Officer shall be the ex-officio Executive Officer:Provided that such Block Development Officer shall be recalled by the State Government if a resolution to that effect is passed by the Panchayat Samiti, at a meeting specially convened for the purpose, by a majority of the total number of members holding office for the time being.”

b) Punishment of a Zilla Parishad employee

Section 168(2) of the WB Panchayat Act states: “The Executive Officer may award any punishment other than dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of an officer of the Zilla Parishad.The Executive Officer may recommend the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of an officer or employee of a Zilla Parishad to the Artha Sanstha Unnayan O Parikalpna Sthayee Samiti (Standing Committee for finance) and such Samiti shall forward the case to the Zilla Parishad with its own recommendation. The Zilla Parishad may if it is satisfied with such recommendation of the Artha Sanstha Unnayan O Parikalpna dismiss, remove or reduce in rank of any such officer or employee.” Further as per Section 168(4): “No officer or other employee shall be punished by the Zilla Parishad except by a resolution of a Zilla Parishad passed at a meeting.”

APPENDIX –III (View of local newspaper)

All the state level dailies and also the local dailies and weeklies gave wide publicity to the incident of assault on BDO. While almost all the newspapers decried the incident and supported the role of the administration to handle the entire episode, one of the local weeklies named “Mithekara” had a different view. In one of its issue dated 26.12.1983 it had questioned the active Role of the DM. In its opinion there was no need on the part of the DM and the SP to go to the Thana to cause arrest of the Sabhapati of the Panchayat Samiti concerned.  The correspondent retorted: since the DM was in a Training Institute of IAS officers for a considerable period before being posted as DM, he was isolated from the common people and because of this isolation he was not careful enough to go through the files properly and to gather information in a right manner. 

It further pointed out that, keeping the question of decentralisation in sight; this incident of violation of government order could be viewed as an endeavour of capturing the power by the bureaucracy.  It advised the DM to take similar action in other such cases of alleged inaction on the part of the police to arrest the accused.

APPENDIX –IV

 (Rejoinder by MP Published in “Jugantar” on 25.02.1984.

I was taken aback by the news item titled “New turn in manhandling of officers in the Murshidabad District” (published in 9^th February issue).  I was present at the Panchayat Samiti meeting held on 2^nd February 1984 as MP along with the MLA Mr “X”, wherein the proposal for removal of BDO Sri Y was raised and accepted.  The allegation against the BDO was that he had forged the resolution that had been prepared on discussion with the Sabhapati and Sahakari Sabhapati for distribution of relief.  The BDO had admitted committing this act in the said meeting and that had been recorded in the resolution of the meeting.

Though it was decided that the list of beneficiaries for distribution of wheat minikits will be prepared by the Karmadhyaksha concerned and would be approved by the Sabhapati yet the BDO was alleged to have cancelled the list of Sabhapati and distributed the minikits according to his personal will and that too after a considerable delay and thereby caused irreparable damage to the farmers and also flouted the Government order.

When the Sabhapati tried to prevent this act, the BDO implicated him in a false case and got him arrested.  When I was discussing over the proposal for removal of BDO, then the BDO instigated the members of Congress party to stop me from carrying on the discussion.  This was also recorded in the resolution of the meeting.  Crossing his limit, the BDO shouted that he did not agree with the proposal taken because the majority do not always speak the truth.  This statement of BDO was also recorded in the resolution of the meeting.  Inclusion of a person in the Panchayat system who has no regard for democracy results in jeopardising the said system.

In this regard, it may be mentioned that the BDO, as per news items published on 9^th February, stated that he acted in accordance with the direction of D.M.  If any order is passed by the DM, which goes against the laid down principles of the Government, then the intention of the DM should also be given a thought. 

Finally, my appeal to the State Government is that the resolution of the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti held on 2nd February should be called for and on the basis of it, the BDO Sri ‘Y’ should not only be removed from the Panchayat Samiti but also be dismissed form the service.

APPENDIX- V

(Letter of DM dated 16.03.1984 addressed to the Chief Secretary on news items published on the issue of flouting of government order)

Sir,

            I am to draw your kind attention to newspaper reports published on page 9 of The Statesman dated 15.03.84 on page 3 of Amrita Bazar Patrika and page 6 of Aajkaal, copies of which are enclosed.

2.   It has been stated here if correctly reported that the MIC, Panchayat and C.D. stated in the Assembly “that in Murshidabad certain complications had arisen because of the personal interpretation of the Panchayat by the District Magistrate” (Statesman) and that in the issues of mini-kits “the D.M. has flouted the Govt. order” (Amritabazar Patrika).

3.  I am to point that this is not the correct fact.  The facts are that in the meeting of the District Co-ordination Committee (set up under chief Secretary’s letter No. 2860-PAR(IAS) /80-321/77 dated 14.10.77) held on 9.11.83 at 11 a.m. in Berhampore, Sri ‘J’, MLA, has raised certain queries regarding the modalities for distribution of wheat mini-kits by Panchayat Samitis.  It was the Sabhadhipati of Murshidabad Zilla Parishad who categorically laid down certain guidelines.  I am reproducing the relevant extract from the proceedings:

Extracts from proceedings of the meeting of the District Co-ordination Committee held on 9.11.83 at 11 a.m. in the Circuit House, Berhampore.

Invitees present :

1. MOS for Education.
2. Sabhadhipati, Murshidabad, Zilla Parishad.

3 to 9.  1 MP and  6 MLAs of the District.

Members present : 52 officers of Govt. departments.

Agriculture.

1. Shri ‘S’, PAO ( Principal Agriculture Officer) reported that enquiry report into the allegation about distribution of mini-kits in Singhari village was received from SAO(K).  56 mini-kits were allotted for Gadda G.P. The list prepared by the G.P. was approved by the Panchayat Samiti after exclusion of 15 beneficiaries on various grounds, which caused resentment amongst the G.P. functionaries.  They refused to distribute the minikits.  Ultimately the ADO prepared a list and according to the list minikits were distributed in conformity with the present guidelines of the Government Order.

            This was the back ground of alleged distribution.

1.1  In reply to a to a query by Shri ‘J’, MLA, PAO stated that according to stipulations of the Govt. Order, the list of beneficiaries would be finalized by the Panchayat Samity & in case, the Panchayat Samiti failed to finalise, the list would be prepared by the ADO (Erstwhile ADO).

1. Sri ‘N’, Sabhadhipati, categorically stated that there is no scope to think that the G.Ps. are ignored in distribution of Minikits.  The GPs are organic limbs of a Panchayat Samiti, shall prepare the basic list according to the sub-allotments by a Panchayat Samiti through the concerned Sthayee Samiti. The Sthayee Samiti concerned are to approve the list within the priorities of the list unless there is serious material objections sustained on enquiries by competent officers i.e. ADOs/AEOs.

4. It was in pursuance of these decisions of the District Coordination Committee, in which the MOS, Education, 6 MLAs and one MP, were also present, that guidelines were issued for distribution of the wheat minikits. There is nothing in these guidelines which contravenes any provision of the West Bengal Panchayat Act.

5. I am also to point out that the Agriculture Secretary, Shri ‘P’ wrote to the Commissioner Presidency Division, regarding distribution as follows in the demi- official letter no. 631/Secy dated 17/12/1983 :

            “Kindly refer to your D.O. letter No.367-RG(K) dated 13/12/1983 on the subject of the distribution of minikits for the rabi season. I also feel that the D.M. followed the best course by amplifying on the Govt. order with a procedure in consultation with the Sabhadhipati and other Panchayat leaders, since there was no time to be lost by reference to the Govt.”

6. In this connection I am to point out that as far back as 26.11.1983, I had written to the Commissioner Presidency Division regarding a similar distortion of fact in report published in Amrita Bazaar Patrika dated 15^th. November, 1983, stating that Shri ‘J’ MLA has complained to the Chief Minister that I had violated the Govt. orders on distribution of minikits. I am enclosing a copy of the copy of my letter to the commissioner, Presidency Division for ready reference.

7. I am to request that the Govt. place on record the correct fact as they stand. It is a matter of regret incorrect fact have been in the Assembly (if the newspaper report is correct) despite the entire matter being concord in detail in the Panchayat Department, the Agriculture Department and with the Divisional Commissioner.

8. I am also to state that the complete facts of the case were reported by me in your presence in the meeting held in the chamber of MIC, Panchayat and CD on 15^th. December 1983 where it was shown time and again in black and white that it was the Sabhadhipati of the Murshidabad Zilla Parishad who have proposed down those guidelines with the concurrence of the MOS, Education, 6 MLAs, 1 MP and the official members of the District Coordination Committee. The Panchayat Secretary, the Agriculture secretary and the Member, Board of Revenue were also present in this meeting in the chamber of the MIC. The District Magistrate has acted in pursuance of this said decisions of the District Coordination Committee and had not by any means ventured to make any “personal interpretation” of the Panchayat Act nor had he flouted any Govt. order. On the other hand, his action has been fully sanctioned by the Agriculture Secretary in his letter to the Commissioner of the Division, quoted in Para 5 above.

9. I shall be obliged if you kindly take up the matter with the appropriate authority for removal of incorrect imputation about the District Magistrate, in the reported statement of minister in the assembly.

                                                                                             Yours faithfully,

                                                                                           District Magistrate

Copy forwarded to Shri “C”, IAS Commissioner of the Division, for information and necessary action.

                                                                                            District Magistrate

APPENDIX – VI

(The FIR of the BDO)

Government of West Bengal

Office of the Block Development Officer

Raninagar

                                                                                                         Dated 02/12/1983

To

The Officer-in-charge

Raninagar Police Station

       I like to draw your attention to the following facts for taking immediate measure to prevent further deterioration of Law and Order in Block office premises.   

       On 1.12.83 at about 3-30 PM the ADO, Raninagar came to my chamber on request on my part for having a discussion on distribution of wheat minikits. When we were discussing on this, the Sabhapati of this Panchayat Samiti (Mr. “A.B”), Mr. “SCD” (ex-Sahakari Sabhapati of this Panchayat Samiti) and Mr. “I”, chowkidar Murshidabad Zilla Parishad Dak Bungalow at Raninagar suddenly entered into my office chamber with about 15 to 20 persons shouting for immediate distribution of wheat minikits. At that time I saw a mob of about 500 people encircled the entire premises and were shouting for immediate distribution of wheat minikits.

      The manner of the distribution of the same as was demanded by the Sabhapati and others, as said above, in contravention to the instruction and guidelines of the appropriate authority, so both I and the ADO tried to convince the above persons not to force us to take an illegal measure. All our efforts were in vain when the Sabhapati cried out with shouting filthy language:

“DM – er chotha manina. gam diben kina bolen?  Na hole oi gam ADO, BDO aar DM –er pachhay pora hobe. Orei shudhu kothai hobe na — pachhay achhola bansh dite hobe, tabe sala-ra shaesta hobe.”

[“I do not accept the scrap of paper from the DM.  Say whether you will distribute wheat or not?  Otherwise that wheat will be shoved into the arse of the ADO, the BDO and the DM. See, mere words won’t suffice – unskinned bamboo should be shoved up their arse, only then will these idiots be taught a lesson.”] and with further filthy abuse.

      On hearing this, the ex- Sahakari Sabhapati, Shri “SCD” and the chowkidar “I” began to instigate the assembled mob (headed by them) to attack and assault to fulfil their demand on show of force. At this moment someone from the mob in my chamber standing by the side of “I” attacked the ADO with closed-fisted blow on the back side of the head, throat, and cheek and also tried to knock him down from his chair.      

       On this sudden outburst, though I was also perplexed, I tried to resist and ultimately finding no other alternative, I had go round to their illegal demand under such compelling circumstances as still then the person named above were shouting – “ minikits na dile kono byatar rehai nei”     [“No one will be spared if minikits are not distributed”].

      Under duress the ADO had to distribute the minikits as per their demands.

       Being a Govt. servant the ADO had been assaulted when he was discharging his official duties and the ADO and myself had been obstructed on wrongful confinement from discharging our official function in the interest of the public service. By applying criminal force the above named person forced us to do what was illegal officially.     

         In view of what has been stated above, you are requested to take immediate legal measures for this unlawful assembly headed by the persons above-named when they deterred Govt. Officials from discharging their public functions as public servants assaulting and applying criminal.

         Please treat this as my FIR.

                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                       Block Development Officer 

                                                                                                       Raninagar.

Copy forwarded to the District Magistrate, Murshidabad / Sub-Divisional Officer Lalbagh for kind information and necessary action.

                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                       Block Development Officer 

                                                                                                       Raninagar.

APPENDIX-VII

REPLIES TO THE STARRED ASSEMBLY QUESTION NO. 316 RAISED BY SRI “AAA”   MLA

                                                           APPENDIX – VIII

(Letter of DM dated 21.01.84 to the Secretary Panchayat and CD regarding the procedure to be followed to suspend the Chowkidar, Raninagar Staging Bungalow)

From: The District Magistrate

           Murshidabad

To:      The Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal

Panchayat and CD Department.

Subject: Suspension of Shri “I” Chowkidar Raninagar staging Bungalow, Nasibpur Zilla Parishad.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to your radiogram No. 920/Panch dated 17^th January, 1984, on the above subject and to state that Shri “I”, Chowkidar of Raninagar staging Bungalow of Murshidabad Zilla Parishad, was arrested by the police for criminal charges and continued in the jail custody for 67 hours continuously from 2^nd December, 1983 at 21-30 hrs to 5^th December, 1983 at 16-45 hours when he agreed to accept the bail and was released. Shri “I” is in receipt of salary amounting to rupees 300/- per month and cannot therefore be punished by the Executive officer Zilla Parishad u/s 168 of the Panchayat Act, 1973.

• Government have now clarified in the radiogram under reference that the employee is automatically treated as suspended. I am to seek instruction as to who will issue the suspension orders and this can be done by the Secretary, Zilla Parishad without the necessity of a formal meeting of the Zilla Parishad under Section 168(2).
• I am also to request instructions as to the time from when the suspension orders are to take effect. In view of the normal course Government employees are automatically deemed to be suspended if they have spent more than 48 hours in police custody. It may kindly be clarified whether this applies to Zilla Parishad employees in the instant case.
• Since it will take considerable time for a formal meeting of entire Zilla Parishad to be convened, it may please be clarified whether, in the mean time, suspension can be issued from the Secretary, Zilla Parishad in view of the radiogram from your end. This is important because the employee is continued to draw pay in full which will be highly irregular after receipt of the instructions from your end. In your radiogram no. 920-Panch dated 17.01.84.
• In case Govt. feels that a formal meeting is a prerequisite to issue suspension order, it may please be clarified what is to be done in case the Sabhadhipati does not agree to convene a meeting on this issue. It is not clear from the Act who will convene the meeting of the Zilla Parishad. This may also please be clarified. In such a case, kindly instruct us whether the said employee should have paid his full salary while he is deemed to be automatically under suspension although no formal suspension orders have yet been issued.

                                                                                                       Yours faithfully,

                                                                                                     District Magistrate

                                                                                                            Murshidabad

Copy forwarded with a copy of the radiogram of the Secy. Panchayat Deptt. to the Commissioner of the Division, for information for kindly pursuing the matter with the Panchayat Deptt.

         District Magistrate

                                                                                                               Murshidabad

Appendix –IX

(Instruction of the DM dated   07.12.1983 to all the SDOs to render special efforts to make the Officer-Panchayat relationship smooth)

From: The District Magistrate

           Murshidabad.

To:      The SDO (all)

            Incidents are coming to notice of problems of adjustment and occasional misunderstanding between Govt. officials and elected representative at the Panchayat level in order to ensure that development work proceeds smoothly and sanctioned funds of Govt. are utilised effectively, it is necessary to resolve such disputes amicably at the earliest opportunity.

            Accordingly, I request you to keep close watch over your Block and L.R. circles. The Sabhapatis and the concerned Govt. officials will approach you wherever disputes cannot be resolved at their level amicably. You will take the initiative in intervening promptly so that incidents are not blown-up out of proportion leading to bitter feeling on either side.

            The Sabhadhipati, Murshidabad Zilla Parishad is writing separately to all Sabhapatis requesting them to approach the SDOs promptly wherever they have problems of adjustment or alleged non-cooperation from the officials. Please advise your BDOs and JLROs suitably.

            It is reiterated that for the smooth functioning of the administration it is imperative that the SDOs give the highest priority to resolving such disputes at the earliest opportunity. Please keep me informed of the action taken from time to time.

           District Magistrate

                                                                                                                 Murshidabad

Copy forwarded to:-

1. The Sabhadhipati, Murshidabad Zilla Parishad.
2. The Additional District Magistrate (General), Nasibpur.
3. The Additional District Magistrate (LR), Nasibpur.

           District Magistrate

                                                                                                                   Murshidabad

LEARNING NOTES OF PANCHAYAT AND BUREAUCRACY (PART-I)(FINAL)

Parawise:

Para-1:

• Emergence of new three tier Panchayat system –horizontal hierarchy: each tier is unit of independent self government.
• Deterioration of relationship between government officials and Panchayat Raj functionaries resulting in victimization of government officers while discharging impartial duties.
• Misuse of power by the ruling party.
• Government officers at remote areas are treated as soft targets.
• Introduction of Community Development Programme : nature and volume of work at Block level changes.

Para-2:

• Strategic and socio-economic problem of the Block.

Para-3:

• Political scenario at GP and PS level : distribution of political power almost at equal proportion.

Para-4:

• Change of key officers at block and district level.

Para-5:

• Ignoring the lower tier of democracy the resolution was taken in KSSS which was contrary to the prevailing norms of distribution.

Para-6:

• Persuasive role of BDO to restore democratic rights at lower tier of Panchayat Raj Institution (PRI).
• Arrogance of Sabhapati to comply DM’s order : tension between political and executive bureaucracy.

Para-7:

• Incomplete Government orders create confusion at field level : lack of professionalism.
• Misinterpretation of Government orders by PAO to please the political boss.
• Upright and judicious role of Sabhadhipati.

Para-8:

• DM’s order aimed at further decentralization taking all concerned into confidence.

Para-9:

• Guiding role of BDO for maintenance of equity and fairness.
• Arrogance of Karmadhyaksha: tension between political and executive bureaucracy.

Para-10:

• Proper guidance by the DM

Para-11:

• Analyzing and decisive power of BDO.

Para-12:

• Pressure tactics by political counterpart to realize unlawful gain.
• Abuse of DM and BDO by filthy language.

Para-13:

• Physical assault on ADO & BDO instigated by political executives as ultimate tool of pressure tactics – temporary gain.

Para-14:

• De-motivating effects of Physical assault.

Para-15:

• Prompt and responsive action by DM & SP.
• Inaction of local OC.
• Police- Magistrate relationship: good at top but bad at lower level.
• Importance of drafting of an FIR (sec. 154 of Cr.P.C): bad drafting may lead to acquittal.

Para-16:

• Obstructing and abusing the Public Servant- offence u/s 188 IPC.
• OC activated by SP.
• Doubtful role of SDPO!
• Arrest of a Sabhapati who belongs to the ruling party- unique incidence.

Para-17:

• Pressure tactics by political parties.

Para-18:

• Failure of police intelligence: inadequate measures taken by the administration for maintenance of peace.

Para-19:

• Suspension of Sahakari Sabhapati( School Teacher)- CCA Rules.

Para-21:

• Solidarity of Service Cadre: ultimate sufferer is the public.
• Government was forced to take proper action.

Para-22:

• Pressure by the officer’s Association.

Para-23:

• Information channel of BDO- saved his life.

Para-24:

• Criminalization of politics.
• DM & SP both responsive and sensitive.
• Conspicuous absence of the middle tier administration- SDO & SDPO.

Para-25:

• Special meeting for removal of BDO: Section 119(1) of WB Panchayat Act, 1973.
• Detached involvement and professional competence of BDO- Nishkam Karma: enabled him to remain unperturbed, managing stress.

Para-26:

• Support for integrity, righteousness and professional competence. of BDO even against the political allegiance.
• Professionalism and networking of BDO.
• Inter and intra service solidarity amongst government officials.

Para-27:

• Preconceived hidden agenda led to postponement of meeting in spite of quorum: lack of transparency.

Para-28:

• Anti-defection measures by the Ruling Party- questionable loyalty.

Para-29:

• Acceptability of BDO by all concerned and moral support.

Para-30:

• Nil.

Para-31:

• Role of opposition in democracy.

Para-32:

• Knowledge is power (Section 108 of WB Panchayat Act, 1973.)
• Power of informed citizenry (Right to Information).
• Not to be overawed: basic quality of civil servant to uphold the Constitutional provision for public good against all odds.

Para-33:

• Leadership quality of BDO- it is always lonely at the top.
• Ability to marshal information

Para-34:

• Proactive role of DM realizing the highly critical nature of the problem.

Para-35:

• Impartial enquiry by SDO.
• Truth triumphs ultimately.

Para-36:

• Role of media- the fourth estate played a vital role in formation of public opinion.

Para-37:

• Twisting of facts by MP.

Para-38:

• Active role of fellow feeling.

Para-39:

• Firm and unrelenting attitude of district officials made the political executives bow down.
• MIC’s maturity vis-à-vis immaturity of local level politician.

Para-40:

• Reportedly wrong statement by the MIC in the floor of Assembly.
• Has the DM violated Government Order?
• Face saving of the government by MIC.

Para-41:

• Professional and strategic move by DM to inform Chief Secretary so that he in turn conveys it to CM.
• Realistic role of CM.

Para-42:

• BDO- a Public Servant in the true sense of it.
• Inspired leadership of BDO motivated others- professionalism at its best: not allowing personal assault to intrude into his professional work.
• Ability to demarcate between different paths of action- Law & Development.

 Para-43:

• Proactive role of District Authority made the distribution policy transparent and just. (Para-43)

Issue wise:

Political & social scenario:

• Emergence of new three tier Panchayat system –horizontal hierarchy: each tier is unit of independent self government. (Para-1)
• Physical assault on ADO & BDO instigated by political executives as ultimate tool of pressure tactics – temporary gain. (Para-13)
• Pressure tactics by political parties. (Para-17)
• Strategic and socio-economic problem of the Block. (Para-2)
• Criminalization of politics. (Para-24)
• MIC’s maturity vis-à-vis immaturity of local level politician. (Para-39)

Democratic values.

• Political scenario at GP and PS level : distribution of political power almost in equal proportion. (Para-3)
• Support for integrity, righteousness and professional competence. of BDO even against the political allegiance. (Para-26)
• Anti-defection measures by the Ruling Party- questionable loyalty. (Para-28)
• Role of opposition in democracy. (Para-31)
• Power of informed citizenry (Right to Information). (Para-32)
• Not to be overawed : basic quality of civil servant to uphold the Constitutional provision for public good against all odds. (Para-32)
• Role of media- the fourth estate played a vital role in formation of public opinion. (Para-36)
• Reportedly wrong statement by the MIC in the floor of Assembly: Disvalue. (Para-40)
• Face saving of the government by MIC. (Para-40)
• Proactive role of District Authority made the distribution policy transparent and just. (Para-43)

Good governance

• Persuasive role of BDO to restore democratic rights at lower tier of Panchayat Raj Institution (PRI). (Para-6)
• Upright and judicious role of Sabhadhipati. (Para-7)
• Prompt and responsive action by DM & SP. (Para-15)
• Police- Magistrate relationship: good at top. (Para-15)
• Arrest of a Sabhapati who belongs to the ruling party- unique incident. (Para-16)
• OC activated by SP. (Para-16)
• Information channel of BDO- saved his life. (Para-23)
• DM & SP both responsive and sensitive. (Para-24)
• Professionalism and networking of BDO. (Para-26)
• Proactive role of DM realizing the highly critical nature of the problem. (Para-34)
• Impartial enquiry by SDO. (Para-35)
• Firm and unrelenting attitude of district officials made the political executives bow down. (Para-39)
• Professional and strategic move by DM to inform Chief Secretary so that he in turn conveys it to CM. (Para-41)
• Realistic role of CM. (Para-41)
• Proactive role of District Authority made the distribution policy transparent and just. (Para-43)

Bad governance

• Deterioration of relationship between government officials and Panchayat Raj functionaries resulting in victimization of government officers while discharging impartial duties. (Para-1)
• Misuse of power by the ruling party. (Para-1)
• Government officers at remote areas are treated as soft targets. (Para-1)
• Ignoring the lower tier of PRI(GP) the resolution was taken in KSSS which was contrary to the prevailing norms of distribution- undermining the democratic institution.( Para-5)
• Arrogance of Sabhapati in not complying with DM’s order : tension between political and executive bureaucracy.(Para-6)
• Incomplete Government orders without procedural details create confusion at field level leaving scope for maneuvering: lack of professionalism. (Para-7)
• Misinterpretation of Government orders by PAO to please the political boss. (Para-7)
• Pressure tactics by political counterpart to realize unlawful gain: the lower level to which politicians can go.(Para-12)
• Inaction of local OC.( Para-15)
• Police-Magistrate relationship: bad at lower level.(Para-15)
• Doubtful role of SDPO. ( Para-16)
• Failure of police intelligence: inadequate measures taken by the administration for maintenance of peace.( Para-18)
• Solidarity of Service Cadre: ultimate sufferer is the public.( Para-21)
•  Conspicuous absence of the middle tier administration- SDO & SDPO. (Para-24)
• Preconceived hidden agenda led to postponement of meeting in spite of quorum: lack of transparency.( Para-27)

Acts, Rules, Orders and Procedure

• Introduction of Community Development Programme : nature and volume of work at Block level changes. (Para-1)
• Importance of drafting of an FIR (sec. 154 of Cr.P.C): bad drafting may lead to acquittal.( Para-15)
• Obstructing and abusing the Public Servant- offence u/s 188 IPC. (Para-16)
• Suspension of Sahakari Sabhapati (School Teacher)- CCA Rules. (Para-19)[Also see Arrest & Bail- provisions of Cr.P.C]
• Special meeting for removal of BDO: Section 119(1) of WB Panchayat Act, 1973.( Para-25)
• Knowledge is power (Section 108 of WB Panchayat Act, 1973.) (Para-32)
• Has the DM violated Government Order?( Para-40)

Leadership

• DM’s order aimed at further decentralization taking all concerned into confidence.( Para-8)
• Guiding role of BDO for maintenance of equity and fairness.(Para-9)
• Proper guidance by the DM.(Para-10)
• DM did not take the abuse personally in greater public interest keeping in mind that the three tier PRI system was at its budding stage: capacity of DM to visualize a situation holistically.(Para-12)
• Leadership quality of BDO- it is always lonely at the top.( Para-33)
• Professional and strategic move by DM to inform Chief Secretary so that he in turn conveys it to CM.( Para-41)
• BDO- a Public Servant in the true sense of it.( Para-42)
• Inspired leadership of BDO motivated others- professionalism at its best: not allowing personal assault to intrude into his professional work.( Para-42)

Desirable qualities of a Civil Servant

• Guiding role of BDO for maintenance of equity and fairness.(Para-9)
• Analyzing and decisive power of BDO.(Para-11)
• Prompt and responsive action by DM & SP.( Para-15)
• Information channel of BDO- saved his life.( Para-23)
• DM & SP both responsive and sensitive.( Para-24)
• Detached involvement and professional competence of BDO- Nishkam Karma: enabled him to remain unperturbed, managing stress.( Para-25)
• Professionalism and networking of BDO.( Para-26)
• Acceptability of BDO by all concerned and moral support.( Para-29)
• Knowledge is power (Section 108 of WB Panchayat Act, 1973.)( Para-32)
• Leadership quality of BDO- it is always lonely at the top.( Para-33)
• Ability to marshal information.( Para-33)
• Impartial enquiry by SDO.( Para-35)
• Firm and unrelenting attitude of district officials made the political executives bow down.( Para-39)
• BDO- a Public Servant in the true sense of it.( Para-42)
• Inspired leadership of BDO motivated others- professionalism at its best: not allowing personal assault to intrude into his professional work.( Para-42)

Intra-service relationship

• OC activated by SP.( Para-16)
• Solidarity of Service Cadre: It has two sides- 1) government is forced to redress any unjust act of omission or commission;2) if it leads to ultimate pen down or withdrawal, ultimate sufferer is the public which justifies legislation like ESMA (Essential Commodities Maintenance Act)( Para-21)
• Inter-and-intra-service solidarity amongst government officials.( Para-26)
• Active role of fellow-feeling.( Para-38)

Inter-service relationship

• Police- Magistrate relationship: good at top but bad at lower level.   ( Para-15)
• Pressure by the officer’s Association.( Para-22)
• Inter and intra service solidarity amongst government officials.( Para-26)
• Active role of fellow feeling.( Para-38)

Values & ethics

• Pressure tactics by political counterpart to realize unlawful gain- disvalue:(Para-12)
• Physical assault on ADO & BDO instigated by political executives as ultimate tool of pressure tactics – temporary gain: disvalue ( Para-13)
• De-motivating effects of Physical assault: disvalue (Para-14)
• Criminalization of politics: disvalue (Para-24)
• Detached involvement (working without personal attachment) and professional competence of BDO- Nishkam Karma: enabled him to remain unperturbed, managing stress.( Para-25)
• Support for integrity, righteousness and professional competence. of BDO even against the political allegiance.( Para-26)
• Preconceived hidden agenda led to postponement of meeting in spite of quorum: lack of transparency disvalue ( Para-27)
• Acceptability of BDO by all concerned and moral support.( Para-29)
• Impartial enquiry by SDO.( Para-35)
• Truth triumphs ultimately.( Para-35)
• Twisting of facts by MP: Disvalue( Para-37)
• Firm and unrelenting attitude of district officials made the political executives bow down.( Para-39)
• Inspired leadership of BDO motivated others- professionalism at its best: not allowing personal assault to intrude into his professional work.( Para-42)
• Ability to demarcate between different paths of action- Law & Development.( Para-42)

I – GHENA MRIDANGA

1. Pekepara is a small village forming part of Baganchara Anchal in Shantipur Police Station of Nadia District in West Bengal.  Ghrina—better known as ‘Ghena’—Mridanga was a resident of this village from his childhood. He had been working as a servant and day-labourer in the household and fields of Sagar Santra, a well-to-do farmer of Pekepara. The Santras had come to look upon him as part and parcel of their household and had even got him married.

2. Though working as a day-labourer, Ghena had dreams of standing on his own feet some day. Since 1969 he had been cultivating 0.7 acres in plot numbers 976 and 977 in Mouza Baganchara, Jurisdiction List 12, on behalf of Sagar Santra, handing over to him the entire produce. These lands originally belonged to the Maharaja of Krishnagar. During the last Settlement Operations Sagar Santra had managed to get himself recorded as a ‘jabar-dakhalkar’ (forcible occupier) of the plots since 1950.

3. When the Revisional Settlement Operations were announced, Sagar’s son Bhiku released that as these lands had since vested in the State he would have to manipulate matters in order to maintain his illegal possession of the plots. Bhiku’s initial plan was to enter into a ‘benami’ transaction by setting Ghena up as a landless agricultural labourer cultivating Government lands on his own. This would lead to the plots being settled with him formally, as Government policy was to hand over ownership rights to landless cultivators of vested lands. Thus while Ghena remained the formal owner and patta (land deed)-holder, the Santras would continue as the real beneficiaries with Ghena working as their day labourer and household servant.

4. Unfortunately for Bhiku Santra, Ghena Mridnga had matured and was beginning to use his mother-wit. Ghena had heard that the actual possessor of vested land would be eligible for getting right and title over it. He also got wind of Bhiku’s plan. Suddenly one morning he left the Santras, set up his own little hut and started living as a separate entity in order to uphold his individual claim, and not as a ‘front’ for the Santra vested interests. Finding his initial plan gone up in smoke, Bhiku quickly shifted to clever propaganda. He had it put he had it put about assiduously that these vested plots had been purchased by his father from the zamindar, the Nadia Raj Estate, decades back and that he was, therefore, the legal owner. When this news reached Ghena’s ears, he saw all his fond hopes dissipate and quietly handed back the plots to the Santras. Sagar Santra promptly obtained an agricultural loan from the BDO and in 1973 sank a shallow tubewell on plot No. 977—a tubewell which did not function for a single day but served as convenient proof of Santra’s occupation of vested land.

5. Only one thing was lacking to complete Santra’s triumph: legal right and title to the lands, which could be obtained only by  having the Government allot the plots in his favour. On the other hand, Ghena had not given up although he was now nothing but a landless agricultural labourer thrown out by his erstwhile employer. With the advice of some local villagers, Ghena applied to the Junior Land Reforms Officer (JLRO) of Shantipur Land Reforms Circle for allotment of these two vested plots. The Circle Inspector (Land Reforms) of this circle was sent by the JLRO on inspection to the area. He prepared a ‘math-khasra’ (record of field-possession) showing that Ghrina Mridanga, Bhiku and Krishnapada Santra (Sagar’s nephew) were in possession of both plots 976 and 977 since 1951 but that at present, i.e. in 1973, Bhiku alone was in possession of both plots. On the basis of this report, the Block Level Land Reforms Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 23-6-73 recommended settlement of the land as follows:

Plot 976 area 0.51  to Ghena Mridanga s/o Khedu. Own Land:  nil
Plot 977 area 0.18  to                   -do-
-do-     area 0.70  to Bhiku   Santra s/o  Sagar. Own land:  1.00
-do-     area 0.70  to Krishnapada Santra s/o Nakul. Own land:  0.99

6. This recommendation was duly approved by the SDO Ranaghat in Settlement Case No. 11-XII/SP/73-74 of Mouza Baganchara, J.L. No. 12. However, the pattas (title-deeds) were not distributed till 1975 and it was only on 10-2-75 that the local Tehsildar (a commission agent for collecting land revenue who keeps the local land records) handed over the pattas to the two Santras after physical possession had been formally made over to them by the Circle Amin on 7-2-75. Curiously enough, the Amin (Group D staff who measures the land) had signed the possession certificate on 6-2-75 but this was over-written to 7-2-75 and signed by the JLRO without giving any date. No patta was handed over to Ghrina Mridanga. During the subsequent enquiry, the JLRO claimed that these pattas had been distributed to the Santras without his knowledge. He failed to explain how, in that case, he had signed the possession certificate. In the Register of Patta Distribution the column pertaining to the date of distribution was blank. According to the Amin, Ghrina’s patta could not be handed over because Bhiku Santra would not allow him to do so. He claimed that he had informed the JLRO of this verbally.

7. After the state government had issued instructions for undertaking a crash programme for distributing all pending pattas, it was on 29-4-76—more than a year later—that the Circle Amin and the Assistant Revenue Officer of the Land Reforms Circle went to deliver Ghrina’s patta. Once again Bhiku objected and successfully confused the ARO (whose function is purely to recover government loans and who has nothing to do with land records) by producing a copy of the Record of Rights wherein Sagar Santra’s name appeared as forcible occupier of the lands retained by the Zamindar. The ARO quickly left the spot after perfunctorily issuing Santra a notice under Section 49(A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, asking him to vacate possession of the vested lands not allotted to him. He also ‘allowed’ Santra and Ghena three days time to settle the matter amicably.

8. However, on 2-5-76 Ghena took the law into his own hands and tried, ineffectually, to gain possession of the lands allotted to him three years back. Sagar Santra immediately sent off a complaint to the Land Revenue Minister who asked the Additional District Magistrate (Land Reforms) [ADM(LR)], Nadia to report. Santra claimed, in his complaint, that the plots had been vested in the State wrongly and that they rightfully belonged to him and were being cultivated by him and his forefathers for generations without break. He alleged that Ghena had ruined the vegetable crop he had grown on these plots with the help of a band of dangerous criminals, and that he apprehended danger to his life and property from this ‘terrible marauder’ Ghena.

9. On enquiry it was found that after the notice had been issued to Bhiku Santra by the ARO asking him to vacate the lands allotted to Ghena, no action was taken to lodge a complaint with a judicial magistrate, as provided in the WBLR Act, when Bhiku did not take any steps to comply with the order. Ghena, in turn, applied to the SDO Ranaghat—an IAS officer on his first posting—on 12-6-76 complaining that he had approached the JLRO for being given possession of the lands, and had been rebuked for attempting to take possession without having a patta. On subsequent occasions Ghena had been told by the JLRO that he had better approach the Block Development Officer and the ADM (LR) for getting patta since he had ‘dared’ to send petitions to them. He was also told that a case had been instituted against him in the Ranaghat Court and until this was decided, no patta could be given to him. The SDO Ranaghat passed on Ghena’s petition to the JLRO on 25-6-76 for ‘taking necessary action’. The JLRO noted on the petition on 1-7-76, “The patta cannot be handed over to the allottee at the present stage of the situation growing in the locality” and did not send any intimation to the SDO, who did not pursue the matter.

10. On 22-6-76 copy of a notice to the Collector, Nadia, under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was received by the JLRO from one Gyanadabala Dasi, wife of late Rajendra Manna, stating that Sagar Santra was her caretaker appointed for 0.51 acres in plot 976 and 1.58 acres in plot 977, i.e. precisely the portions allotted to Ghrina and the Santras, and that it was she who had taken settlement of these lands from the Nadia Raj Estate. The notice warned the Collector to desist from distributing the said lands since the Records of Right were wrong and Gyanadabala Dasi intended to file a suit for declaring her title to the lands. The JLRO duly forwarded on 2-7-76 a skeletal statement of facts to the Revenue Munsikhana Section of the Collectorate which deals with civil cases involving government. The section took no action in the matter, as it was only a notice and no suit had yet been field. In the meantime, Bhiku Santra had lodged a number of complaints in the form of General Diary entries in the local Police Station against Ghena, alleging various types of intimidation on his part.

11. At this point the ADM (LR) decided to investigate the case in person. He had, in succession, sent two officers to look in to the case: one was a WBCS probationer who had been a Kanungo in the Settlement Directorate for over a year with field experience to his credit; the other a very senior WBCS officer who was a veteran of the Settlement Directorate. None of these reports could satisfactorily explain the mysterious appearance of Gyanadabala Dasi on the scene and the JLRO’s reluctance to hand over the patta to Ghrina. The SDO, who had then been asked to look into the matter, did not visit the spot but endorsed his JLRO’s report that the danger of breach of peace precluded handing over the patta. The SDO firmly expressed his view that subordinate officers should be backed up instead of being disbelieved.

12. Thereupon the ADM went straight to the village in question, visited the plots in dispute, the house of the Santras, the hut of Ghena and spoke to the villagers. He discovered that Gyanadabala Dasi was the masi (maternal aunt) of Bhiku and was the termagant ruling the Santra household with an iron hand. He found that the JLRO was in the habit of visiting the house of the Santras (a large pukka building) and that on his last visit, after the SDO had passed on Ghrina’s complaint to him for necessary action, he had first gone to see Gyanadabala Dasi, asked her why she had not sown anything on those plots yet. Then he had told Ghena that until the shallow tubewell was lifted from the plot, possession could not be given to him and also that this would have to wait till the case against him in the court was decided. The Santras had promptly sown both the plots with kalai (a type of pulse) in defiance of the notice under Section 49-A of the Land Reforms Act asking them to vacate vested land on penalty of eviction and payment of damages. As for the shallow tubewell, the only sign of its existence the ADM found was the pipe.

13. The ADM also found that both the reports sent by the JLRO on the complaint made by Sagar Santra to the Land Revenue Minister had been drafted by the JLRO himself, which was extremely unusual, and that the fair copies had been made out not by the assistant dealing with such matters but by the Issue Clerk and the Amin. Moreover, the details of the land records supplied in these reports were wrong. The correct RORs (Record of Rights) had been copied from the local Settlement Office later, but were sent to the ADM in original by the JLRO without keeping copies or correcting his own records. The JLRO’s style of functioning was an important clue which led to the ADM’s discovery of a mass of irregularities and serious lacunae in the land distribution carried out by this JLRO.

14. The ADM then took the SDO Ranaghat with him to the spot along with Amins, demarcated the area allotted to Ghena Mridanga and formally handed over both the patta and the land to this allottee in the presence of the villagers and the Santras on 28-9-76. He explained to Ghena that since Bhiku had already sown kalai in the plots, he should be allowed to harvest the produce without interference. The office copy of the patta was handed over to the JLRO who, by then, was at his wit’s and fell all over himself promising to protect the rights of Ghena.

15. On 5-11-76 the ADM was surprised to find Ghena in his office with a complaint of having been driven off his land by the Santras assisted by the Gram-Adhyaksha (village headman) of the village. The SDO Ranaghat was immediately informed. On 9-11-76 the SDO wrote to the Circle Inspector of Police, Shantipur, asking him to ensure peaceful possession of the lands by Ghena and wanting a report by 15-11-76. On 17-11-76 the SDO informed the ADM that the allegation made by Ghena was false, since the CI had reported that he was very much in possession of the land and (extremely significant) “he has harvested kalai on the land”.

II – NANDA DALUI

1. Nanda Dalui owns 3.56 acres of land at Assannagar in the police station of Krishnagar in West Bengal. He supports his mother, wife and 4 minor children. He inherited this land from his father the late Sudhanya Dalui and his uncle the late Surya Dalui. Both his father and uncle had taken a loan of Rs.3,600 jointly from the Nadia District Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited (NDCLDB) for sinking a shallow tubewell. They were also indebted to the tune of Rs.700 to Jitendra Nath Saha, a fertilizer and pesticide licensee who had no money-lending licence. Saha realised the debt in kind at about Rs.10 less than the prevailing market price. The money-lending transactions were entered by him in a hath-chita, a small account book bound in red cloth.

2. In March 1974 Sudhanya Dalui  received a notice from the NDCLDB for re-paying Rs.2,100.  He approached Jitendra Saha for advancing a further loan to meet the demand of the Bank. This was perhaps the opportunity Jiten Saha was waiting for.  He informed Sudhanya Dalui that he would not be able to advance this loan without security since Dalui had not repaid the earlier loan. Sudhanya was compelled to execute a registered sale deed for two bighas of his land for a loan of Rs.1,000,  whereas the market value of the land was around Rs.2,000 at that time. Sudhanya was also pressurised into executing a bainanama (sale-agreement) that he would sell his remaining land for Rs.3,000 should he fail to repay Rs.3,622 by Chaitra 1382 B.S. (April 1976) on payment of Rs.500 by Saha. The market value of this portion of land being irrigated with a shallow tubewell was not less than Rs.20,000. Dalui, however, did not hand over possession of any portion of his land to Saha. He went on repaying his loan to Jiten Saha by giving him a share of his produce. It is not possible to assess the fairness of the price determined by Saha for the crop since there was no entry in the hath chita about the quantity of crop received. At one place only, where an entry had been made, it was found that Dalui had given Saha 176 kg of paddy for Rs.220, but in the next page the balance brought forward omitted the amount wholly.

3. Sudhanya Dalui and his brother Surya Dalui both died soon thereafter. Nanda Dalui was faced with a nightmarish situation and had to approach Jiten Saha again to repay the outstanding dues of the Bank. Saha showed Nanda Dalui the bainanama and asked him to hand over two bighas of irrigated land. Nanda Dalui did not agree to the suggestion and was served with a pleader’s notice informing him that the bainanama would be converted into a registered sale deed unless the debt was repaid by Chaitra 1382 B.S.

4. Nanda Dalui submitted a petition to the Additional District Magistrate (Land Reforms), Nadia, on 10 March 1976 stating his problem and praying for succour. The Assistant Magistrate & Collector (a newly recruited Indian Administrative Service probationer) was entrusted with the enquiry into the case. He summoned the parties to the office of the Anchal Pradhan (elected head of the community development block-level panchayat samiti) on 13 March 1976 but the parties were not present at the appointed place. The Anchal Pradhan informed the Assistant Magistrate that the matter had been amicably settled. Sri Harinarayan Mallick, who had sponsored the petition of Nanda Dalui, also denied the facts stated therein. The Assistant Magistrate had, however, noticed Nanda Dalui hovering about in a hesitant manner near the office. On making enquiries about the antecedents of the Anchal Pradhan the Assistant Magistrate found that he had lands and properties in Assannagar, Krishnagar and Calcutta and was an unofficial agent of the local Marketing Cooperative Society for purchasing jute. It was found that local farmers did not get a fair price for their jute and the Anchal Pradhan had appropriated the money as middleman.

5. The Assistant Magistrate asked the Anchal Pradhan to produce the parties immediately as he suspected that the alleged settlement between Nanda Dalui and Jiten Sahu was spurious. Nanda Dalu and his witness confirmed his suspicions. On interrogation Jiten Saha became extremely nervous and made contradictory statements about the loan due to him from Nanda Dalui. He was informed of the moratorium on realisation of rural debts imposed by the West Bengal Rural Indebtedness Relief Act 1975 and was asked to settle the matter with Nanda Dalui forthwith. Saha asked for seven days’ time for the purpose.

6.  A week later Nanda Dalui reported to the Assistant Magistrate that Jiten Saha had given him hints that he should sell two bighas of his land and repay his debts with the sale proceeds. Saha also did not turn up before the Assistant Magistrate at the appointed time. The ADM (LR), along with the Additional Superintendent of Police and the Assistant Magistrate, thereupon visited Assannagar on 23 March 1976 but could not find Saha although prior intimation had been sent. The Anchal Pradhan and Jiten Saha’s elder brother Subodh Saha were asked to ensure that both the parties appeared before the ADM on the next day along with the sale deed and the bainanama.

7. On the following day, Jiten and Subodh Saha appeared, but without those documents which, they pleaded, were lying with their lawyer and were not easily available. Nanda Dalui was also present and recounted the entire history. It was pointed out to Saha that he was guilty of evading stamp duty and that action under Section 64 of the Indian Stamp Act could be taken against him, involving a penalty of Rs.5,000. Further, it was found that his fertiliser and pesticide licences had expired and had not been renewed so far. Moreover, he was lending money to many people. On all these facts being pointed out and on being reminded about moratorium on rural indebtedness, the elder brother, Subodh Saha gave a written undertaking that he was taking the responsibility to cancel the bainanama and retransfer the lands to Nanda Dalui by a registered sale deed. He also undertook not to press Nanda for repayment of the debt amounting to Rs.3,622.45 and agreed that it could be repaid by Nanda at his convenience. Accordingly, he was asked to execute the sale deed on the same day and arrangements were made for handing over it to Nanda Dalui. The bainanama was also cancelled the same day.

8. The Nadia Land Development Bank which had, in the meanwhile, taken steps to auction the lands for realization of its loan, was informed of the developments and it agreed to allow time till the next year when it was hoped that Nanda Dalui, freed from the burden of usurious demands, would be able to achieve a certain amount of financial solvency.

9. The local BDO was instructed to allot the wheat minikit and summer paddy seed package to Dalui under the agricultural extension programme for enabling him to start cultivating his land free from the crippling problem of obtaining basic inputs.

10. At the same time the ADM succeeding in persuading the U.B.I. (the Lead Bank) to finance Nanda Dalui. The first step they took was to pay off Dalui’s loan to the Land Development Bank. Then they deputed their field officer for supervising Dalui’s wheat and paddy cultivation on the field along with an agricultural input loan of Rs. 700 for the wheat and Rs. 1,000 for the summer paddy.