Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 811 (CAL)

Maya Chaudhuri v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2008-08-08

KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. The common judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 7th December, 2007 has triggered of the two challenges made by Mr. Bhattacharyya's client Maya Chaudhuri who is the applicant in W.P.L.R.T. No. 22 of 2008 and Mr. Alim's clients Sankar Paswan and others, who are the applicants in W.P.L.R.T. No. 30 of 2008. It is one of the rare cases, where both the parties are aggrieved. Normally, by a judgment and order, one party becomes aggrieved and another becomes happy. 2. In both the matters, there has been a dispute with regard to the quantum of land measuring 0.05 acres. Mr. Bhattacharyya's client Smt. Maya Chaudhuri purchased the said land in or about 1982 and she made an application for correction of record-of-rights by means of mutation to the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer who has refused to correct the record-of-rights having observed that in the said land Sankar Paswan and others, Mr. Alim's clients' name have already been recorded as owner and/or possessor. While refusing this application, he observed that the names of Mr. Alim's clients is recorded as owners and they are said to have acquired their interest by way of vesting and transfer under the various clauses of West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). As such, this transfer is contrary to the provisions of section 10 of the aforesaid Act. 3. Against the aforesaid order of refusal, Mr. Bhattacharyya's client preferred an appeal before the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, who after hearing the parties observed and found that there has been no valid acquisition of land under the aforesaid Act and it appears, according to him, that during Khanapuri Bhujarat operation, their names were recorded as possessor. Despite observing as above, the District Land and Land Reforms Officer did not mutate Mr. Bhattacharyya's client's name in respect of the entire plot or land, but allowed the application for rectification of record-of-rights and mutation to the extent of 0.03 acres in favour of Mr. Bhattacharyya's client and the rest viz. 0.02 acres has been allowed to be retained and kept for Mr. Alim's clients. 4. Bhattacharyya's client's name in respect of the entire plot or land, but allowed the application for rectification of record-of-rights and mutation to the extent of 0.03 acres in favour of Mr. Bhattacharyya's client and the rest viz. 0.02 acres has been allowed to be retained and kept for Mr. Alim's clients. 4. Obviously, both the parties were dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision and they filed separate applications before the learned Tribunal and both the parties claim ownership in respect of the entire plot of land of 0.05 acres. The said two applications were heard and the learned Tribunal, upon hearing, has affirmed the order of the District Land and Land Reforms Officer. 5. It seems to us that both the District Land and Land Reforms Officer and the learned Tribunal had taken an equitable view so that both the parties can remain in possession. We are of the view that the approach of the District Land and Land Reforms Officer and the learned Tribunal is totally wrong as the issue is whether Mr. Bhattacharyya's client has any right to mutate her name as owner by way of rectification of record-of-rights or not. In other words, Mr. Alim's clients have acquired any right under the aforesaid Act or otherwise or not. Mr. Alim's clients' consistent case is that they have acquired right because of the vesting under the said Act and subsequent transfer of the land in favour of his clients. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer has decided in favour of Mr. Alim's clients. 6. The learned Tribunal has accepted the findings of the District Land and Land Reforms Officer that there has been no valid acquisition and it is doubtful how this vesting order could be passed. Both the officers, without making any endeavour or calling for the records, took the aforesaid decision. Issue is whether there has been valid acquisition under section 4 and payment under section 5 of the aforesaid Act or not. There must be some records for initiation of the acquisition proceedings. Unless records are looked into, it cannot be found out how Mr. Alim's clients' name could be recorded as possessor of the said land and it cannot be decided whether there has been any proceedings under the aforesaid Act or not. When there is conflicting views of two authorities, we think that best course of action would be the following exercise. 7. Alim's clients' name could be recorded as possessor of the said land and it cannot be decided whether there has been any proceedings under the aforesaid Act or not. When there is conflicting views of two authorities, we think that best course of action would be the following exercise. 7. We direct the District Land and Land Reforms Officer to make a detailed enquiry calling for the records and to find out : (a) Whether there has been lawful and valid acquisition proceedings under the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975, in respect of the disputed plot of land or not ? (b) Whether any amount of compensation was paid to the owner or not? 8. While doing so, the District Land and Land Reforms Officer shall give fresh hearing to Mr. Bhattacharyya's client viz. Maya Chaudhuri and Mr. Alim's clients viz. Sankar Paswan, Hira Paswan and Ganesh Paswan, being the successor-in-interest of Late Lakshman Paswan and also erstwhile recorded owners and the vendors of Mr. Bhattacharyya's client. The aforesaid exercise would not have been called for, had the State filed any affidavit and brought the records before us. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. In the event, it is found that there has been no acquisition under the aforesaid Act, Mr. Bhattacharyya's client's application must be allowed and necessary correction in the record-of-rights must be made. If it is found that there has been a valid acquisition, then obviously, there will be no need to rectify the records. Till the decision is taken afresh, status quo with regard to possession, as of today, shall be maintained by the parties. 9. This application is, thus, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the applicants. K. J. Sengupta & P. Mandal, JJ. Applications disposed of.