Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 794 (CAL)

Ganga Ram Ghosh v. B. L. & L. R. O.

2008-08-06

KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. We gave direction for filing affidavit on 28th February, 2008; however, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. In spite of notice no one appears for the private respondents. 2. This application is against the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 20th November, 2007. By the judgment and order impugned, applicants' application, being O.A. 3984/03 was dismissed. In the said application, the applicants alleged that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Ranaghat- II has not acted in terms of the judgment and order dated 20th January, 2003 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA. 3174/02. 3. The fact of the case is that the applicants purchased two plots of land from the vendor intermediary for a valuable consideration. The quantum of land of the said two plots, in aggregate was 38 decimals. At one point of time, the State Government denied applicants' right, title and interest in the land contending the same being vested land. 4. Thereafter, a civil suit was filed by the applicants for declaration of title in which the State Government and the private respondents were parties. The suit was contested by the State and the suit was decreed granting declaration of title in favour of the applicants. 5. The private respondents did not contest the decree. However, both the State and the private respondents preferred two appeals separately and the appeal Court did not interfere with the decree and the decree passed by the learned Trial Judge was affirmed. There was also no appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree. It was held in sum and substance; the appellant had purchased lawfully, out of the retained land, and the effect of the decree is that the land could not be held to be a vested one. 6. On the strength of the decree, the applicant applied for correction of records-of-rights; however, the same was refused. As such, the applicant approached the learned Tribunal with the earlier application, being O.A. 3174 of 2002 and the said application was disposed of with a direction upon the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Ranaghat-II to treat the application as representation before him, hear the applicants and dispose it of by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. Since Civil Court had declared title in respect of the subject two plots of land. Since Civil Court had declared title in respect of the subject two plots of land. Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Ranaghat-II is directed to explore all possibilities of treating subject plots of land which was purchased by the applicants after the date of vesting under Estates Acquisition Act and retain the land of the intermediary as whose subject surplus and was subject land vested by deducting equal quantum of land from the retained land of the intermediary which is still in his possession or in the possession of his heirs within four months from the date of communication of this order. 7. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Ranaghat-II, pursuant to the said direction, tried to implement the same but while doing so, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, found that it was not possible as the disputed plots of land were vested in terms of the said Act from the erstwhile intermediary as compensation, towards vesting, has already paid and pattas have been granted to the private respondents after vesting. 8. Learned Tribunal, having noted the aforesaid fact, found that when effort was made to implement the order and such effort was not found to be fruitful, therefore, there was no fault on the part of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. 9. Mr. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal was not implemented at all reading the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, in real sense has nullified the Civil Court's judgment and decree treating the land being vested one. Learned Tribunal's order was not implemented at all. It is not a case where the aforesaid order cannot be implemented. Learned Tribunal has casually taken this matter and did not go deep into the real issue. 10. Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the respondent, submits that the learned Tribunal has correctly found that it was not possible to carry out the direction of the learned Tribunal since pattas have been issued and the land had been vested. 11. We are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Ghosh that the order of the learned Tribunal could not be implemented. Learned Tribunal's finding is also not appreciated by this Court. 11. We are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Ghosh that the order of the learned Tribunal could not be implemented. Learned Tribunal's finding is also not appreciated by this Court. When the learned Tribunal earlier found that there has been a decree, passed by a Civil Court, declaring that the purchased land cannot be treated to be a vested one, learned Tribunal should have noticed that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer had avoided implementing the said order. According to us, vesting order, in view of the Civil Court's judgment and decree, has now become illegal and invalid and subsequently issuance of pattas have also become illegal and the same are cancelled. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, at the first instance, should have cancelled the pattas upon hearing the persons who have been issued the same and at the same time the intermediary vendor and/or their heirs should have been called for hearing and asked them to spare equivalent quantum of land from and out of their retained land. The object and purpose of the order of the learned Tribunal was to give relief to the applicant from the rigour of vesting. As it was a post vesting purchase, relief was intended to be given in view of the declaratory decree passed by the Civil Court. It was and is possible and feasible for the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to implement the order of the learned Tribunal reading Civil Court's judgment and decree. 12. We are told Mr. Roy's clients are in possession of the land in question; therefore, only paper exercise is to be done. 13. In view of the aforesaid fact, we set aside the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal as also the order passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Ranaghat-II and direct the said Revenue Officer to take steps for rectifying the records, cancelling the pallas. This should be done upon hearing the persons in whose favour pallas have been issued. Similarly, notice shall be served upon the intermediary vendor and/or their heirs, calling upon them to spare equivalent quantum of land, purchased and held by Mr. Roy's clients, for the purpose of vesting out of their retained land And after fresh vesting order is passed, steps may be taken for issuance of pattas in favour of those persons who were issued pattas previously. 14. Roy's clients, for the purpose of vesting out of their retained land And after fresh vesting order is passed, steps may be taken for issuance of pattas in favour of those persons who were issued pattas previously. 14. With the aforesaid method both the civil Courts judgment and decree and the order of the learned Tribunal must be implemented and records must be corrected accordingly. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order without fail. 15. The application is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. 16. Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis. K. J. Sengupta & Prasenjit Mandal, JJ.: Application disposed of.