Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 443 (CAL)

Saraswati Mandal v. State of West Bengal

2014-05-14

ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgement and/or order passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in M.A. No. 558 of 2013 arising out of O.A. 2515 of 2006 (LRTT) at the instance of the writ petitioners who were applicants before the Learned Tribunal. 2. Let us consider as to how far the Learned Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. 3. Admittedly the petitioners herein purchased land measuring about 9.34 acres of Plot No. 177, Khatian No. 64, Mouza-Malekangumti, P.S. Hasnabad, District-24-Parganas on 24th April, 1956 from Binapani Debi, wife of Ardhendu Sekhar Chattopadhyay. 4. After purchasing the said land from Binapani Debi, the petitioners applied for mutation of their names in the record of 2 rights. Their names were mutated and the petitioners were shown as raiyats in respect of the said land in the record of rights. The names of the petitioners were also recorded in the Rent Roll. The State Government also started realising rent from the petitioners regularly by granting rent receipts. 5. Considering the facts that the names of the petitioners were mutated as raiyats in the revenue records and their names were also entered in the Rent Roll and the Government had started realising rent from the petitioners by granting rent receipts, this Honble Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by the husband of the petitioner no.1 being Civil Rule No. 5999(W) of 1969 was pleased to hold that the land which the petitioners purchased from Binapani Debi cannot be treated as vested land of the State Government. 6. Accordingly, the order of vesting of the said land which was passed by the concerned authority against the said Big Raiyat viz., Binapani Debi in Case No. 193-R under Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act in so far as it relates to the land which the petitioners purchased, was quashed and set aside by this Court on 1st June, 1989. 7. The State-respondents were directed to treat the petitioners as tenants under the State in respect of the land which the petitioners purchased from Binapani Debi. The State-respondents were also restrained from creating any disturbance in the possession of the petitioners therein in any way. The record of rights in respect of the said land was directed to be corrected accordingly. 8. The State-respondents were also restrained from creating any disturbance in the possession of the petitioners therein in any way. The record of rights in respect of the said land was directed to be corrected accordingly. 8. The said order was not challenged by the State respondents before any higher forum. The State-respondents accepted the said order. As such, the said order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 1st June, 1989 in Civil Rule No. 5999(W) of 1969 appearing at page 42 of the writ petition attained its finality and the same is binding upon the parties. 9. Since the State-respondents were parties to the said writ petition, the State-respondents cannot take any contrary stand subsequently to nullify the effect of the said order. 10. As such, we are of the view that the State-respondents have no other alternative but to correct the record of rights in the light of the direction passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 1st June, 1989 in Civil Rule No. 5999(W) of 1969 appearing at page 42 of the writ petition. 11. This Court thus disposes of this writ petition by directing the State-respondent No.4 to correct the record of rights in the light of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 1st June, 1989 in Civil Rule No. 5999(W) of 1969 appearing at page 42 of the writ petition positively within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order without seeking any approval from the higher authority for effecting such correction and/or by ignoring any adverse direction, if already passed by the authority concerned, contrary to the direction passed by this Court. 12. It is, however, made clear that in the event the State respondents want to proceed with the Big Raiyats case against the said Binapani Debi and/or her heirs and representatives, it may do so in accordance with law without affecting interest of the petitioners in the land which the petitioners purchased from the said Binapani Debi as the State-respondents have recognised them as tenants directly under the State respondents as post vesting purchasers. 13. The order of the Learned Tribunal which is impugned in this writ petition thus stands quashed. 14. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. 15. Let the affidavit-of-service filed in Court today, be kept with the record. 16. 13. The order of the Learned Tribunal which is impugned in this writ petition thus stands quashed. 14. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. 15. Let the affidavit-of-service filed in Court today, be kept with the record. 16. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the applicant as early as possible.