Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 172 (CAL)

Prafulla Kr. Shome v. State of West Bengal

2002-03-13

ALOK KUMAR BASU, Altamas Kabir

body2002
Judgment This writ application is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2001 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in T.A. No. 448 of 2001 (LRTT), which was originally filed in this Court under C.O. No. 12633(W) of 1988. 2. Although, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed in the matter, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, since the matter involves a point of law regarding the applicability of the provisions of section 14P of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 to a transfer effected between 7th August, 1969 and 15th February, 1971, the date of coming into effect of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971. 3. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that the lands in question belonged to one Smt. Ashalata Dutta, who transferred the same to the petitioner by a registered deed of gift on 4th December, 1970. Thereafter, the said land was duly mutated in the name of the petitioner and the rents were also collected from him by the State of West Bengal. It was urged that by virtue of acceptance of such rent, a new tenancy was created in favour of the petitioner, and, as a result, the provisions of section 14P of aforesaid Act would not have any application to the petitioner's land. 4. In support of his submissions Mr. Haque, learned Advocate, referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Panchu Moliah vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 1980(2) CLJ page 1, wherein it was held that when the State Government had mutated the name of the petitioner as a tenant and had accepted rent from him as a tenant, the State Government could not treat the said land as vested land. 5. It was further observed that even assuming that the right of the petitioner's vendor had vested in the State of West Bengal, by the subsequent Acts it would have to be held that the State Government recognised the tenancy right of the petitioner. 6. Opposing the writ application on behalf of the State and the State/respondents, Mr. 5. It was further observed that even assuming that the right of the petitioner's vendor had vested in the State of West Bengal, by the subsequent Acts it would have to be held that the State Government recognised the tenancy right of the petitioner. 6. Opposing the writ application on behalf of the State and the State/respondents, Mr. Roy, learned Advocate, submitted that in view of certain subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which were followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Paul Rozario vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2000(2) CHN page 78, the decision in Panchu Molla's case was no longer good law. 7. In this regard, Mr. Roy referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sawarni (SMT) vs. Inder Kaur (SMT) & Anr., reported in 1996(6) SCC page 223, and Sankalchan Jaychandbhai Patel vs. Vithalbhai Jaychandbhai Patel & Anr., reported in 1996(6) SCC page 433, wherein it was held that mutation did not create any title in the property, but such mutation entries are made only to enable the State to collect revenue from the persons in possession and enjoyment of the property. 8. Relying on the said two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge observed that the mutation of a property in the revenue records does not extinguish title, not has it any presumptive value of title and that mutation entries are only to enable the State to collect rent from the persons in possession and enjoyment of the property. 9. On the said basis it was also observed that the proposition of law laid down in Panchu Molla's case might not hold good in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the abovementioned cases. Mr. Roy also submitted that having regard to the above, no reliance could be placed on the decision in Panchu Molla's case and it must be held that the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in applying the provisions of section 14P of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, in dismissing the petitioner's application. 10. Mr. Roy also submitted that having regard to the above, no reliance could be placed on the decision in Panchu Molla's case and it must be held that the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in applying the provisions of section 14P of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, in dismissing the petitioner's application. 10. In our view, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that of the learned Single Judge in Paul Rozario's case will not apply to the facts of this case, since not only had the name of the petitioner been mutated in the revenue records, but rent had also been collected from him in respect of the lands in question. The law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as followed by the learned Single Judge in Paul Rozario's case is confined to the question as to whether mutation in the revenue records or any other record creates any title in respect of the land in question. There is no denying the proposition of law that mere mutation does not create and/or take away title to the lands in respect whereof such mutation is effected. However, the proposition as explained in Panchu Molla's case is a little different in that not only had the name of the petitioner been mutated, but it was observed that on the acceptance of rent from the petitioner, a fresh tenancy was recognized and accepted by the State in his favour. 11. That aspect of the matter was not the central issue which fell for the consideration of the learned Single Judge in Paul Rozario's case where it was observed that the decision in Panchu Molla's case may not be good law in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The matter, in fact, was left undecided. 12. We therefore, are of the view that the law as laid down in Panchu Molla's case still holds the field with regard to the creation of a separate and a new tenancy on acceptance of rent after mutation. 13. We, accordingly, allow the writ application and set aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal as also that of the Revenue Officer in the 14T(3) proceeding, wherein the land transferred in favour of the petitioner had been taken into consideration while determining the ceiling of the reiyat. 13. We, accordingly, allow the writ application and set aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal as also that of the Revenue Officer in the 14T(3) proceeding, wherein the land transferred in favour of the petitioner had been taken into consideration while determining the ceiling of the reiyat. The Revenue Officer is, accordingly, directed to pass a fresh order in the 14T(3) proceeding after excluding the lands forming the subject matter of the registered deed of gift dated 4th December, 1970 executed by the raiyat, Smt. Ashalata Dutta, in favour of the petitioner. 14. There will be no order as to costs. 15. If an urgent xerox certified copy of this order is applied for, the same is to be supplied to the applicant at an early date, subject to compliance of all the required formalities. Writ application allowed. Order set aside.