Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 27 (CAL)

Gour Mohan Roy v. Revenue Officer

1986-01-20

SUDHIR RANJAN ROY

body1986
ORDER This Rule is directed against the vesting order passed by the respondent no. 1, the Revenue Officer (annexure D) and the subsequent direction to the petitioners to submit return in Form No. 7A (annexure E). 2. The petitioners along with many others are shebaits of four deities as described in paragraph 1 of the writ petition. 3. The origin of the endowment is somewhat obscure but as it appears, one Shanti Ram Roy installed the said deities and endowed vast properties in their favour for carrying on their Sevapuja and there is no dispute that the said lands are rent free debuttar lands under sub-s. (2) of S. 6 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. 4. The petitioners and others as successors, in interest of Shanti Ram Roy are the shebaits of the four deities and their names with their respective shares have been recorded in the Revisional Settlement record-of-rights. 5. The khas agricultural lands in possession of the shebaits which are spread over in different mouzas measure 133.63 acres, most of the lands being situated in non-irrigated areas. 6. According to the family arrangement each shebait is in occupation of different plots as shown in the relevant Revisional Settlement record-of-rights and Debsheva is performed by them by turn out of the usufructs of the debuttar lands. 7. The respondent no. 1, the Revenue Officer, Arambagh started a proceeding in Case no. 1(D) of 1972 under S. 14(M)(50 read with S. 14(2A) of the West Bengal Laud Reforms Act in respect of the debuttar properties mentioned earlier and by an order dated November 15, 1977 the deities were allowed to retain 22.30 acres of land and the remaining 122.63 acres were directed to be vested (vide annexure A to the petition). Being, aggrieved, the petitioners and other sebaits preferred an appeal in the Court of the Collector of Hooghly, Calcutta (vide annexure B). The appellate authority by an order dated February 25, 1978 set aside the impugned order of the respondent no. 1 and remanded the case for fresh hearing according to law (vide annexure C). 8. The respondent no. 1 thereafter by application of S. 14M(1) of the Land Reforms Act directed vesting of lands as stated earlier (vide annexure D). Thereafter, by a notice dated August 21, 1978 under Ss. 14S and 14T of the Act the respondent no. 1 and remanded the case for fresh hearing according to law (vide annexure C). 8. The respondent no. 1 thereafter by application of S. 14M(1) of the Land Reforms Act directed vesting of lands as stated earlier (vide annexure D). Thereafter, by a notice dated August 21, 1978 under Ss. 14S and 14T of the Act the respondent no. 1 directed the petitioners to submit a return in Form 7A exercising choice of retention (vide annexure E). 9. According of the petitioners the impugned order (annexure D) is in contravention of S. 14M(5) of the Act. That the deities are represented by sebaits more than 90 in number and the endowment being private debuttar, the lands held by the deities should be deemed to be the lands of the sebaits and in view of S. 14M(5) the sebaits will be entitled to retain the lands to the extent of their shares in their debuttar properties. That S. 14M(1) can have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case and was wrongly applied by the Revenue Officer. 10. The respondents entered appearance and filed an affidavit-in-opposition. 11. Mr. Mustafi, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended that since the properties in question belong to the deities, the sebaits, including the petitioners, can under no circumstances be said to be the beneficiaries in respect thereof within the meaning of sub s. (5) of S. 14M of the Land Reforms Act. He further contended that the deities should come within the category of "any other raiyat" as contemplated by S. 14M(1)(e) of the Act and since it is not the case of the petitioners that the deities in question possessed specified portions of the debuttar properties, all the four deities together should be taken as one single unit and should be allowed to retain 7.00 standard hectares as provided in S. 14M(1)(e) and since the deities have been allowed to retain the said quantity of land by the impugned order of the Revenue Officer the order is absolutely valid and the petitioners consequently are not entitled to the relief prayed for. 12. Now, the only question involved in this rule is whether in the case of a private debuttar, the ceiling area of land would be covered by sub-s. (1) of S. 14M or clause (e) of sub-s. (1) of S. 14M. 13. 12. Now, the only question involved in this rule is whether in the case of a private debuttar, the ceiling area of land would be covered by sub-s. (1) of S. 14M or clause (e) of sub-s. (1) of S. 14M. 13. Section 14M(1) prescribes the ceiling area of agricultural lands as may be retained by raiyats and/or their families Clauses (a) to (d) of S. 14M relate to specific cases whereas clause (e), which is a residuary clause, provides that "any other raiyat" who is not covered by clauses (a) to (d) will be entitled to retain 7.00 standard hectares of land. 14. Sub-section (5) of S. 14M relates to agricultural lands owned by a trust on endowment other than of a public nature and provides that in such cases the lands shall be deemed to be lands owned by the beneficiaries under the trust or endowment and each such beneficiary shall be deemed to be a raiyat to the extent of the share of his beneficial interest in the trust or endowment. 15. So far the instant case is concerned, it is admitted that the debuttar in question is a private and absolute debuttar (vide paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-reply). 16. It is not the case of the petitioners that while creating the debuttar Shanti Ram Roy gave any beneficial interest in the properties to any person other than the deities. The specific case of the petitioners is that the properties were given to the deities for their sevpuja and the properties were being used all along for the benefit of the deities. It is now well-settled that where the whole property is dedicated absolutely to the worship of an idol and no beneficial interest in it is given to any persona, the dedication is said to be absolute and complete. In such a case, the property is held by the idol which is a juridical person and can hold property (Mulla’s Hindu Law, 15th Edition, page 522). The shebaits are simply interested to manage the properties on behalf of the deity. They do not have the legal ownership in the endowed properties. In other words, the properties dedicated to the services of an idol belong to the idol and not to the shebait or shebaits, who have only the title of the Manager of the endowment. 17. The shebaits are simply interested to manage the properties on behalf of the deity. They do not have the legal ownership in the endowed properties. In other words, the properties dedicated to the services of an idol belong to the idol and not to the shebait or shebaits, who have only the title of the Manager of the endowment. 17. So, here in the instant case, if sub-s. (5) of S. 14M has to be applied, the beneficiaries should be held to be the deities and in view of the deeming clause each one of the deities should be held to be a raiyat under the Act to the extent of the share of its beneficial interest in the endowment. 18. Significantly, however, it is not the case of the petitioners that the deities individually have any specific interest in the endowment. As a matter of fact, all the four deities jointly held the debuttar properties and they had no separate allotment. As such, all the four deities as one unit cannot retain more than 7.00 standard hectares as the deities were actually allowed to retain by the Revenue Officer. 19. In my judgment, sub-s. (5) of S. 14M cannot be of any assistance to the shebaits in cases of absolute debuttar where the whole of the endowed property vests in the deity and not beneficial interest is given to them. The sub-section speaks about beneficiaries under trust or endowment and as already seen the only beneficiaries in cases of absolute debuttars are the deities and not the shebaits as is the case here too. In such cases, it will be an unnecessary exercise to embark into the enquiry whether sub-s. 1(e) or sub-s. (5) of S. 14M of the Land Reforms Act will apply. In any case, the deity as the beneficiary, will be treated as a raiyat within the meaning of S. 2(10) of the Land Reforms Act and where there are more than one such beneficiary each of them shall be deemed to be a raiyat to the extent of the share of his beneficial interest in the trust or endowment. But if under the endowment there is no specific extent of share of each beneficiary all of them taken together will be treated as one unit for the purpose of allotment of the ceiling area under S. 14M as is also the case here. 20. But if under the endowment there is no specific extent of share of each beneficiary all of them taken together will be treated as one unit for the purpose of allotment of the ceiling area under S. 14M as is also the case here. 20. That being so, the impugned order allowing the petitioners' deities to retain only 7.00 standard hectares of agricultural land cannot be said to be illegal and without jurisdiction. 21. The writ petition filed by the petitioners be accordingly dismissed on contest. The rule issued be discharged and the interim order do stand vacated. No order is made for costs.