Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 353 (CAL)

ANANTALAL CHAKRABORTY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2003-07-16

ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, S.P.TALUKDAR

body2003
GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20. 04. 2001 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Tribunal') in T. A. No. 633 of 2000 (LRTT ). By the said order, writ petition numbered as 4095 (W) of 1999, which was transferred to the said tribunal, was decided. The said writ petition No. 4095 (W) of 1999 was filed by one Sri Anantalal Chakraborty and Sri Srimantalal Chakraborty, both sons of late Haranarayan chakraborty, challenging therein the order of vesting passed by the appellate authority dated 24. 11. 1998 under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act ). ( 2 ) THE relevant facts of this case are that Haranarayan Chakraborty allegedly transferred 25. 78 acres of land by a registered 'nirupanpatra' dated 31. 12. 1976 to his sons, daughters and also to his grandsons many of whom at that time were minors and also to his deities. ( 3 ) SEVERAL proceedings were initiated in respect of such transfer, but, the proceedings with which we are concerned is the proceeding by the revenue Officer, Keshiayari, in Case No. 1 of 1992 and Case No. 2 of 1992 under Section 14t (5) of the said Act. In the said proceeding, the revenue Officer held that the said transfer was not bona fide and further held that the character of "debottar" is private and also held that 9. 6 acres of land consequently had vested. ( 4 ) CHALLENGING the order of the Revenue Officer, a writ application was filed being numbered as Civil Order No. 14535 (W) of 1992 and by an order dated 27. 08. 1992, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to quash the proceedings. Subsequently, in the year 1995, a fresh proceeding as initiated by the Revenue Officer empowered under Sections 14t (5), 14t (6), 14t (8)and 14t (9) of the said Act. An order was passed on that proceeding to the effect that 10. 04 acres of Land shown in Schedule 'b' have been vested in the State and the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Keshiayari, was directed to take the possession of the said vested land. The Revenue Officer also held that the character of the 'debottar' property created by the said haranarayan Chakraborty, are private 'debottar'. 04 acres of Land shown in Schedule 'b' have been vested in the State and the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Keshiayari, was directed to take the possession of the said vested land. The Revenue Officer also held that the character of the 'debottar' property created by the said haranarayan Chakraborty, are private 'debottar'. Thereafter, on an appeal against the said order, the appellate authority also affirmed the order passed by the aforesaid Revenue Officer. Hence, another writ petition being W. P. No, 4095 (W) of 1999 was filed. That writ petition was transferred to the tribunal and on that, the tribunal passed the impugned order. ( 5 ) THE tribunal, in its order under challenge, noted the points on which the order of the appellate authority was challenged. Those points are noted below :"i. That the Revenue Officer acted illegally and beyond jurisdiction in making enquiry in respect of transfers made in favour of sons and grandsons and deities by the raiyat by a registered instrument in the year 1966 when Chapter-IIB of West Bengal Land reforms Act was not in force. II. That the Revenue Officer has had no jurisdiction to question a transfer made in 1966 either under Section 5a of the West Bengal estates Acquisition Act or under Chapter-IIB of the West Bengal Land reforms Act and as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed. III. That the respondents erred in law in holding that the transfer is a benami transfer inasmuch as Section 14t (5) as amended by the amendment Act, 1981 having been declared ultra vires by the judgment reported in 1991 (1) CHN 496, the question of Benami cannot be gone into in any proceeding under Section 14t (3) of the west Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, 1956, 1955. IV. That after the coming into force of the Benami Transaction act, the respondent authorities acted beyond their jurisdiction in holding the transaction as Benami and it is only the person who made the transfer is competent to say if it was Benami or not. V. That Respondent Authorities cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Chapter-lib of the West Bengal Land Reforms act. " ( 6 ) FROM the order of the Tribunal, it is clear that all those questions have been duly adverted to and dealt with by the tribunal. V. That Respondent Authorities cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Chapter-lib of the West Bengal Land Reforms act. " ( 6 ) FROM the order of the Tribunal, it is clear that all those questions have been duly adverted to and dealt with by the tribunal. ( 7 ) BEFORE us, a dispute has been raised regarding the date of birth of the said Haranarayan Chakraborty and before us, the learned Counsel for the petitioners was referring to a purported certificate issued from the Gram panchayat showing the date of Haranarayan Chakraborty as 10. 03. 1968. The learned Counsel has also referred to a medical certificate to that effect. But, from the order of the Revenue Officer, it is clear that the date of death of Haranarayan Chakraborty is some time in the year 1971 and the Revenue officer has recorded that no document was produced before the Revenue officer as a proof of the fact the Haranarayan Chakraborty died in the year 1968. On the other hand, the Revenue Officer found from the relevant case record that the death certificate of Haranarayan Chakraborty was issued by the Record Keeper of the Midnapore Coiiectorate. who was authorised to do under Section 76 of the Act (Act 1 of 1871) and the date of death was recorded as 21. 03. 1971. Before the appellant authority also, no material was produced that Haranarayan Chakraborty died on 10. 03. 1968. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, in absence of such factual assertion being made before the fact-finding authority, we cannot entertain the same. ( 9 ) RELYING on concurrent findings by the Revenue Officer and the appellate authority, the tribunal held that an enquiry under Section 14t (5)of the said Act showed that the transfer was made by Haranarayan chakraborty in favour of his sons, daughters and grandsons in the year 1966 and at that point of time most of the transferees except 2 and 3 were minors. Even after such transfer, the possession of the transferred land was never parted with and the transferees went on cultivating the lands as before and went on enjoying the usufructs. This factual position has not been disputed before us also. The Tribunal noted that in view of such facts, those transfers were held 'benami' and were made with the object of defeating the anticipated ceiling limit underthe Act. This factual position has not been disputed before us also. The Tribunal noted that in view of such facts, those transfers were held 'benami' and were made with the object of defeating the anticipated ceiling limit underthe Act. The Tribunal noted that the enquiry held under Section 14t (6) of the said Act concluded with the finding that 'debottar' was a private 'debottar1. Such 'debottar1 was clubbed with the land in terms of the provisions of Section 14m (5) of the said Act. The Tribunal also held that since the said Haranarayan Chakraborty died on 22. 03. 1971 which is after the date of vesting, his ceiling was determined by treating the entire land of 27. 34 acres on 15,02. 1971 and since the family of Haranarayan Chakraborty was only two members family, he was entitled to retain 17. 30 acres of land and 10. 04 acres of land being in excess of the ceiling limit vested in the State. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel forthe petitioners submitted that the question relating to Benami transactions cannot be decided by the authorities under the Act in view of the provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition)Act, 1988. This question has been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court in Bibhuti Bhusan Bankura v. The State of West Bengal, reported in 1994 (1) CLJ 353 . The Division Bench held that Section 4 of the Benami transaction (Prohibition) Act, prohibits suit, claim or action, but, the expression action does not bring within its purview the enquiry by a Revenue officer which is contemplated under sub-section (5) of Section 14t of the said Act. Therefore, the learned Judges of the Division Bench in Bibhuti bhusan held that an enquiry into Benami transaction under Section 14t (5)of the said Act is permissible and the Revenue Officer is competent to hold such an enquiry under Section 14t (5) of the said Act. The learned Tribunal in its order also has taken the same view and in our opinion, such view was rightly taken. ( 11 ) SO the only point which was agitated before us by the learned counsel is on the question of Benami transactions. But that point does not survive in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Bibhuti bhusan. ( 11 ) SO the only point which was agitated before us by the learned counsel is on the question of Benami transactions. But that point does not survive in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Bibhuti bhusan. ( 12 ) A decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R. Rajagopal reddy (dead) by L. Rs. and Ors. v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (dead) by L. Rs. reported in AIR 1996 SC 238 SC 238 is on the question whether the Benami transaction (Prohibition) Act of 1988 is prospective or retrospective in operation. The said question is not at all relevant here. As such, the ratio in the said Judgment is not attracted to the facts of the present case. ( 13 ) IN this case, there is no decree of the Civil Court covering the dispute, so there is no question of the Revenue Officer assuming the jurisdiction of the Civil Court ignoring the decree of the Civil Court. Since only two points which were raised before us, namely the question of Benami transactions and the date of death of Haranarayan are answered by us against the petitioner for the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any justification for taking a view different from one which has been taken by the learned Tribunal. The judgment of the learned Tribunal is affirmed. The writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Talukdar, J. , I agree.