Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 196 (CAL)

Bengal N. R. I. Complex Ltd. v. Sudhansu Rang

2002-03-20

Altamas Kabir, S.N.Bhattacharjee

body2002
JUDGMENT Altamas Kabir, J.: Claiming to be bargadars of Plot No. 345 of Mouza-Madurdaha, measuring about 37.25 acres and pertaining to Khatain No.195, P.S. Tiljala, District 24 Parganas (South), Shri Sudhansu Rang and five others filed a writ application in this Court, being W. P. No. 11020(W) of 1998, challenging settlement of the said plot with the Bengal N.R.I. Complex Ltd. On 9th June, 1998, a learned Single Judge while directing the matter to appear as a listed motion after a fortnight, also passed an interim order of status quo as regards possession of the land as on that date till disposal of the application. 2. Aggrieved by the order of status quo passed in its absence, the Bengal N.R.I. Complex Ltd., the respondent No. 10 in the writ petition filed an appeal against the said order, being M.A.T. No. 1986 of 1998. 3. Another Writ Petition, being W. P. No. 11692(W) of 1998, was filed by one Shri Subal Mal and six others, on similar grounds and the same was disposed of on 1st July, 1998, with a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the writ petitioners' representation, being Annexure 'C' to the writ petition, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioners and taking into account the documents and papers to be filed at the time of hearing. The status quo as on the date of the order was directed to be maintained till such disposal. 4. Bengal N.R.I. Complex Ltd. also filed an appeal against the said order, being M.A.T. No. 2316 of 1998. 5. On 27th July, 1998, when the application for stay filed in the two appeals came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court, the two appeals were directed to be listed for hearing along with the stay application on the materials already on record. Subsequently, on 28th July, 1998, on consent of the parties, the writ applications were directed to be heard along with the appeals. 6. The two appeals and the connected writ application, being W. P. No. 11020(W) of 1998, were accordingly taken up for hearing together. 7. Appearing for Bengal N.R.I. Complex Ltd., Mr. Subsequently, on 28th July, 1998, on consent of the parties, the writ applications were directed to be heard along with the appeals. 6. The two appeals and the connected writ application, being W. P. No. 11020(W) of 1998, were accordingly taken up for hearing together. 7. Appearing for Bengal N.R.I. Complex Ltd., Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee submitted that the claim of the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions was without any basis and there could not be any enforceable claim under section 14S of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, unless the claimant was the bargadar of a vested plot on the date of coming into force of Chapter IIB, namely, 15th February, 1971. Furthermore, although, the writ petitioners were claiming to have been inducted as bargadars in the lands in question, no particulars have been provided of the land purportedly under their cultivation and barga right was claimed in respect of certain undefined and undemarcated portions of the aforesaid plot. Mr. Mukherjee urged that although certain areas have been indicated in the barga certificates alleged to have been issued in 1984, no other particulars have been provided to enable identification of the specific portions alleged to have been settled in barga right by virtue of the purported barga certificates. Mr. Mukherjee urged that no entertainable claim could be made and sustained on the basis of such vague and indefinite certificates. 8. In support of his said submission, Mr. Mukherjee referred to and relied on a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Pramatha Nath Mukherjee & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., 70 C.W.N. page 503, wherein an order of requisition under section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (II of 1948) was struck down on the finding that such an order must give sufficient particulars for identification of the land to which the order relates. 9. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that admittedly the plot in question originally belonged to one Shri Prativa Chandra Roy and was directed to vest in the State Government under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, in B. R. Case Nos. 307 and 308 of 1985. 9. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that admittedly the plot in question originally belonged to one Shri Prativa Chandra Roy and was directed to vest in the State Government under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, in B. R. Case Nos. 307 and 308 of 1985. The said order of vesting was challenged by the said Prativa Chandra Roy in a writ application, being Civil Order No. 16675(W) of 1985, on the ground that the aforesaid plot and other plots were tank fisheries which could not be vested under the said Act. The said writ application was allowed on the aforesaid ground on 4th October, 1988, and the impugned order of vesting passed in B. R. Case Nos. 307 and 308 of 1985 was set aside. The respondents were restrained from taking possession of the tank fishery in terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The respondents were, however, given liberty to proceed in terms of other relevant provisions of the said Act after giving the writ petitioners an opportunity of being heard. 10. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that in a proceeding under section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, being L.R. Case No. 31 of 1992, an area measuring 37.25 acres out of the plot in question which comprised a total area of about 77 acres, was declared to be the excess lands of Shri Prativa Chandra Roy by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Thakurpukur, and directed to vest to the State. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the said case was disposed of by orders dated 21st April, 1992 and 4th August, 1993. Subsequent thereto, possession of the vested portion of the said plot was taken by the State Government on 5th May, 1993, and the same was settled with the appellant herein, Bengal, N.R.I. Complex Ltd., a Joint Sector Company, for the purpose of development and construction in conjunction with the State of West Bengal and possession of the land was made over to the appellant company on 20th February, 1997 and the company is in possession thereof since then. 11. Mr. 11. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the writ petitioners' claim to have been inducted as bargadars in respect of vague and indefinite portions of the aforesaid plot which was admittedly a fishery as would be borne out from the entries in the record-of-rights which describes the plot as "Beel Machhchas". Mr. Mukherjee urged that the claim of the writ petitioners that they had been inducted as bargadars in respect of portions of the plot was entirely unfounded as the plot comprised a tank fishery and was not agricultural land capable of cultivation. Mr. Mukherjee contended that the barga certificates allegedly issued in favour of the writ petitioners and the added respondents were indefinite and vague and had been fabricated to make out a claim to the lands in question which had been settled with the appellant company. 12. Mr. Mukherjee urged that the claim of the writ petitioners could not also be entertained in view of the fact that in order to avail of the benefit of sections 14S(2) and 14S(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, they were required to be bargadars as on 15th February, 1971, when Chapter IIB came into force. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that admittedly the barga certificates relied upon by the writ petitioners were issued after 1984, long after the said date and could not, therefore, be accepted as the basis of the writ petitioners' claim. 13. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the writ application of Sudhansu Rang and others was liable to be dismissed and the interim order of status quo passed therein was liable to be vacated. Mr. Mukherjee submitted further that the order passed in the writ application of Subal Mal and others was liable to be set aside since the claim of the writ petitioners had no legal basis which could be considered by the respondent authorities. 14. Appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents in the appeal, Mr. Puspendu Bikash Sahoo submitted that the writ petitioners had been inducted as bargadars of the land in question by the original raiyats long before the coming into force of Chapter IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and they were granted barga certificates by the competent authority in 1984-95. 15. According to Mr. Puspendu Bikash Sahoo submitted that the writ petitioners had been inducted as bargadars of the land in question by the original raiyats long before the coming into force of Chapter IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and they were granted barga certificates by the competent authority in 1984-95. 15. According to Mr. Sahoo, the writ petitioners came to learn in 1998 that 37.25 acres out of the total area of about 77 acres comprising Plot No.345 had been vested in the State in Case No. 31/92 commenced in respect of the lands of Shri Prativa Chandra Roy under section 14T(3) read with section 14T(10) of the aforesaid Act and that the same had been settled with the appellant company which tried to hinder the petitioners' cultivation thereupon. One set of writ petitioners, Shri Sudhansu Rang and others, moved the writ application, being W. P. No. 11020 (W) of 1998, challenging such settlement and the learned single Judge passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards possession of the land as on the date of the order, till the disposal of the application. 16. Mr. Sahoo submitted that the other writ petitions filed by Shri Subal Mal and others on similar ground, being W. P. No. 11692 (W) of 1998, was disposed of with a direction upon the concerned authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioners' representation in connection with their grievance, in accordance with law. The parties were directed to maintain the status quo as on that date till such disposal. 17. Although, Bengal N.R.I. Complex Ltd. had been made respondent No. 10 in both the writ petitions and are appellants in these two appeals, Mr. Sahoo submitted that the appellant company had no locus standi to file and maintain the said appeals as it neither had any legal possession or title in the lands in question. Mr. Sahoo submitted that having regard to the provisions of section 1A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, the appellant company was not entitled to be settled with the said lands. Mr. Mr. Sahoo submitted that having regard to the provisions of section 1A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, the appellant company was not entitled to be settled with the said lands. Mr. Sahoo contended that nothing has been disclosed in the appeals to show how such settlement was effected in securing the principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution or how the appellant company was entitled to be settled with the said lands under section 49 of the aforesaid Act. 18. Mr. Sahoo urged that in view of the provisions of section 14S of the aforesaid Act and more particularly sections 14S(2) and (3) thereof, the writ petitioners as recorded bargadars have acquired an indefeasible statutory right as raiyats upon vesting of the lands in question and such statutory right could not be adversely affected or destroyed by any State action unless taken in keeping with a specific statutory provision. Mr. Sahoo urged that the right of the bargadars and their status were statutorily protected. 19. Questioning Mr. Mukherjee's submission that in order to avail of the benefit of sections 14S(2) and 14S(3) a person would have to be a recorded bargadar on 15th February, 1971, when Chapter IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, came into force, Mr. Sahoo urged that under the said Chapter, determination of ceiling could be made even after 16th February, 1971, and the consequences of vesting would thereafter follow. Mr. Sahoo submitted that in the instant case the excess lands of Shri Prativa Chandra Roy in the plot in question were directed to vest to the State in or about the year 1992/1993 and only thereafter the writ petitioners' claim under sections 14S(2) and 14S(3) became effective. Mr. Sahoo urged that unlike the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 did not provide for automatic vesting of lands in excess of the prescribed ceiling so as to attach significance to the date on which Chapter IIB of the 1955 Act came into force. 20. Regarding the nature and character of the land, Mr. 20. Regarding the nature and character of the land, Mr. Sahoo submitted that originally the lands comprised in the plot in question had been described in the R. S. Record-of-Rights as "Beel Machh Chas" and this Court had not aside the order of vesting thereof under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, in Civil Order No. 16676(W) of 1985, treating the same to be a tank fishery, but the nature and character of the land changed with the passage of time. Over the years, the land became fit for cultivation and the writ petitioners were thereupon inducted as bargadars to cultivate the same and their status as such bargadars were duly recognised by the concerned authorities of the State Government by the issuance of barga certificates in 1984/1985. 21. In support of his aforesaid contention Mr. Sahoo relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1) State of West Bengal vs. Atul Krishna Shaw, AIR 1990 SC page 2205, and in 2) State of West Bengal vs. Suburban Agriculture Dairy & Fisheries Put. Ltd., AIR 1993 SC page 2103, where the change in the status of the lands over the years fell for consideration. Mr. Sahoo submitted that the entry in the R. S. Record-of-Rights cannot lead to an absolute presumption that the land is non-agricultural land or that the same is a tank fishery. 22. Mr. Sahoo contended that the learned Single Judge had very rightly directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the lands in question pending disposal of the writ petition filed by Shri Sudhansu Rang and others, since the appellant company was trying to change the character thereof by attempting to raise constructions thereupon. 23. Mr. Sahoo submitted that the decision in Pramatha Nath Mukherjee's case (supra) relied upon by Mr. Mukherjee, had no application to the facts of the case in view of the fact that for purposes of requisition or acquisition "a specified area of land is involved and is required to be described in the notification indicating the State Government's intention to require and/or acquire the said land. In the instant case as .several bargadars had been inducted in respect of the entire plot comprising a total area of about 77 acres, each bargadar separately demarcated the portion under his cultivation by low mud embankments(ails). Mr. In the instant case as .several bargadars had been inducted in respect of the entire plot comprising a total area of about 77 acres, each bargadar separately demarcated the portion under his cultivation by low mud embankments(ails). Mr. Sahoo urged that it was not feasible to separately demarcate the portions in respect whereof the petitioners and the added respondents had been inducted as bargadars. 24. Apart from the decisions indicated hereinabove, Mr. Sahoo referred to various other decisions which generally support the submissions made by him. 25. Mr. Sahoo submitted that since the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions had acquired indefeasible rights in the lands after the same were directed to vest in the State in view of the provisions of sections 14S(2) and 14S(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms, Act, 1955, the same could not be nullified by a purported settlement made subsequently by the State Government. Mr. Sahoo urged that the purported settlement of the 37.25 acres of land in plot No. 345 of Mouza Madurdaha, P. S. Tiljala, in favour of the appellant company, pursuant to its vesting in the State, was liable to be quashed in view of the rights acquired by the writ petitioners under sections 14S(2) and 14S(3)of the above Act prior to such settlement. 26. The points as urged by Mr. Sahoo were also urged on behalf of the private respondents and those who had been subsequently added as respondents in the appeals. They all claim to have been inducted as bargadars of the land in question and it was their common case that the rights acquired by them under sections 14S(2) and 14S(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, pursuant to vesting of the lands under their cultivation as bargadars, could not be taken away by the settlement purported to have been made in favour of the Bengal N.R.I. Complex Ltd. 27. Appearing for the State and the State respondents, Mr. Sadhan Gupta, submitted that pursuant to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 11692(W) of 1998 (Subal Mal & Ors. Appearing for the State and the State respondents, Mr. Sadhan Gupta, submitted that pursuant to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 11692(W) of 1998 (Subal Mal & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) directing the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the writ petitioners' representation, being Annexure 'C' to the writ petition, the matter was considered by the Revenue Officer and Additional Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, T. M. at Kasba, in Misc. Case No.5 of 1998. Producing a copy of Order No.8 dated 28th January, 1999, Mr. Gupta pointed out that the matter was taken up for disposal on that date in the presence of the writ petitioners. After considering the petitioners' claim to the benefits of sections 14S(2) and 14S(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, in the light of the evidence produced in support thereof, the Revenue Officer came to the conclusion that the writ petitioners could not prove that they were possessing the lands in question on or before the relevant date of vesting under the aforesaid Act and they were not, therefore, entitled to the said benefits. 28. Mr. Gupta submitted that it is in such background that the vested lands were settled with Bengal N.R.I. Complex Ltd., a Joint Stock Company, for development of the said land jointly with the State Government. 29. Mr. Gupta submitted that in the light of the findings of the Revenue Officer, the claim of the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions, as also the similar claim of the added respondents therein, could not be sustained and the writ application of Shri Sudhansu Rang and others was liable to be dismissed. 30. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective paries and the materials on record and although on behalf of the writ petitioners and the added respondents it has been submitted that they had been inducted as bargadars in their respective portions prior to 15th February, 1971, there is no explanation as to why they obtained barga certificates only in 1984/1985. It has been observed by the Revenue Officers and Additional Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, T.M. at Kasba, in his order dated 28th January, 1999, that despite claims to the contrary there were no bargadars on the lands on the date of vesting, namely, 15th February, 1971. 31. There is no dispute that Plot No. 345 of Mouza Madurdaha was described in the R. S. Record-of-Rights as "Beel Machh Chas" namely, tank fishery, for purposes of pisciculture. An attempt to treat the said plot as excess lands of the raiyat under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, and to vest the same, was negated by this Court in Civil Order No. 16676(W) of 1985 on the ground that the said plot comprised a tank fishery. 32. By an order dated 4th October, 1988 the impugned order of vesting and the notice under section 10(2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, were set aside and the respondents were restrained from taking possession of the tank fishery in terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Requisition Act, 1953. 33. Apparently, till the date of the order, the plot in question was accepted to be a tank fishery and could not, therefore, have been used for purposes of agriculture. It was only after the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Acts of 1976 and 1981 that fresh proceedings were taken under section 14T(3) in respect of the lands of Shri Prativa Chandra Roy and ultimately out of a total area comprising about 77 acres in plot No. 345, an area measuring about 37.25 acres was directed to vest in L. R. Case No. 31 of 1992 and possession thereof was taken over on 5th May, 1993. 34. The barga certificates relied upon by the writ petitioners and the added respondents were issued at a time when the plot in question was still treated as a tank fishery. The date of vesting as initially contemplated under section 14S(1) was 15th February, 1971, when Chapter IIB came into force. Subsequently, in order to bring non-agricultural lands within the scope of section 14S (1) the expression "on any subsequent date" was included by way of amendment in 1986. The date of vesting as initially contemplated under section 14S(1) was 15th February, 1971, when Chapter IIB came into force. Subsequently, in order to bring non-agricultural lands within the scope of section 14S (1) the expression "on any subsequent date" was included by way of amendment in 1986. The relevant date for determining the ceiling area of non-agricultural land was fixed to be 9th September, 1980, when section 3A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, came into force. At that point of time, as stated by the Revenue Officer in Misc. Case No. 5 of 1998, there was no existence of any bargadar on the plot. Accordingly, in our view, the writ petitioners and/or the private respondents cannot claim the benefit of sections 14S(2) and 14S(3) as barga certificates were issued in their favour during Operation Barga in 1984/1985 which fact has also been considered by the Revenue Officer in the above-mentioned case. 35. Lastly, it has to be noted that the State Government took possession of the lands on 5th May, 1993. At that point of time, the writ petitioners did not invoke the provisions of sections 14S(2) and 14S(3). It is only after the vested lands were settled with the Joint Sector Company for development thereof in collaboration with the State of West Bengal did the writ petitioners come forward with such a claim. 36. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition of Shri Sudhansu Rang and others cannot be granted. As far as the writ petition of Shri Subal Mal and others is concerned, the same has already been disposed of with certain directions which have also been complied with. The writ application of Shri Sudhansu Rang and others is, therefore, dismissed and the interim order passed therein is vacated. The appeals preferred by Bengal N.R.I. Complex Ltd. are accordingly allowed. 37. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 38. If an urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment is applied for, the same is to be supplied to the applicant expeditiously, subject to compliance with all the required formalities. Stay of operation of this judgment is prayed for and refused in view of the observations made hereinabove. S. N. Bhattacharjee, J.: I agree. Appeal by N.R.I. allowed.