Malda Training Diary - Administrative Training Institute

Page 156 of 156
a procedure: “it is suggested that loan should be advanced by the block where the farmers
cultivable land is located. In such cases the farmer shall declare in his applications that he has
not applied for the loan in the block where his residential house is located and also get it
forwarded by the same B.D.O. to the B.D.O. in whose block his cultivable lands are located.”
In the present case, pressure of loan-distribution work was so heavy that it was impossible for
the cashier to go to Old Malda block and get loan from there.
Accordingly, he got his loan from his present office, to which there is no bar at all as long
as his lands are situated within the same district, as is the case. I also personally ascertained
from the B.D.O. Old Malda that neither Sarkar nor his wife had received any such loan from
the Old Malda block. The sale deeds of husband and wife were checked up and it was found
that they are genuine owners of separate areas of land. Furthermore, the C.P. loan they got
was not from the amount allotted to Purba-Araidanga, but from the Pukhuria allotment. The
Pukhuria GramSabha wanted more Fertilizer loans, and readily agreed to giving these two
C.P. loans from their quota in exchange for extra allotment of Fertilizer loans. Consequently,
the allegation of the Purba-Araidanga petitioners that they have been deprived does not hold
any water.
It is also not true that the cashier and his wife took any fertilizer loan from this block,
as has been alleged in the petition.
As for the allegation against the other eight office-staff, it is true that they have got
C.P. loans, but there is absolutely no legal bar to this since everyone of them has got land
situated inside Ratua-II, except Bibhash Kr. Gupta whose land is situated in Naghoria Mouza,
Ratua-I, even in which case he may draw C.P. loan from Ratua-II
During the spot-enquiry the petitioners alleged that all H.B. grant distribution to all
anchals on 29/1/72 had been haphazard and irregular. Prima-facie from the muster-rolls,
however, their allegations do not seen to be have any basis. Moreover, in their written
petition they have not made any such specific allegation and hence no enquiry into this was
possible unless a fresh petition is presented, clearly specifying the grievances.
The rest of the petition concerns alleged a harassment by the BDO of those who
protested against the irregular distribution of loans. This is part of the incidents on 29/1/72
and cannot be gone into by the enquiring officer.
It can be concluded, therefore, that the allegations of office-staff having taken G.B.
grants is totally false; that it is true that some of them took C.P. loans, but there is no legal bar
to this since they have lands inside the block area. Three of the C.P. loanees have lands
outside but since it is within the same district, they are entitled to the same.
Orders may be passed as deemed necessary.
Yours faithfully,
P. Bhattacharya