Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 636 (CAL)

Sanjukta Basu v. Ag Md. Shamim

2014-07-16

ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2014
Judgment The issue relating to vesting of the land of Sk. Md. Aurangjeb under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 was set at rest by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 10th July, 1988. While disposing of the appeal being First Appeal No. 391 of 1989, the Hon’ble Division Bench observed that the raiyat made a default in not exercising in option within the prescribed period. However, since the possession of the land in question was not taken over by the State and the said land was not settled with any other person, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court stayed the operation of the notice under Section 10(2) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act for a period of four weeks from the date of the order. The appellant therein was directed to exercise his option by filing return in ‘B’ Form before the competent authority within four weeks from the date of the order, with this rider that if such option is exercised within four weeks from the date of the order, the operation of the notice under Section 10(2) of the said Act will be kept pending until the ‘B’ Form return is considered. The competent authority was also directed to consider the question of retention of the land in accordance with law by giving opportunity of being heard to the appellant with a further direction to allow him to retain such land as may be lawfully retained under the provisions of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. The question of taking over possession of the excess land of the intermediary under Section 10(2) of the said Act was thus, deferred until such decision is taken on the ‘B’ Form return of the petitioner by the appropriate authority. It was however, made clear that if within four weeks from the date of the order, the appellant raiyat fails and neglects to submit his choice of retention by filing a return ‘B’ Form before the appropriate authority, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with the notice under Section 10(2) without giving the raiyat any further opportunity to retain lands. The original intermediary died. One of his heirs viz. Mstt. Peary Begum, the appellant No.1 therein, submitted return in ‘B’ Form indicating therein the choice of her retention. The original intermediary died. One of his heirs viz. Mstt. Peary Begum, the appellant No.1 therein, submitted return in ‘B’ Form indicating therein the choice of her retention. Even thereafter, the order passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the said appeal was not carried out by the concerned authority of the State-respondents. Subsequently, in pursuance of an order passed by the Learned Tribunal on 18th May, 2011, the Revenue Officer considered the ‘B’ Form return submitted by the petitioner No.1 in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court dated 10th July, 1990 and passed an order on 15th January, 2001, allowing them to retain land of their choice. The said order passed by the B.L. & L.R.O. attained its finality. Subsequently, the successor in office reviewed the order passed by his predecessor on 15th January, 2001 and passed an order on 15th February, 2012. By the said order, the return in ‘B’ Form which was submitted by Mstt. Peary Begum, was rejected. It was held that the applicants were not entitled to get any relief as per statutory provisions of the Act of 1953. The entire land mentioned in the ‘B’ Form submitted by Mstt. Peary Begum, was held to have been vested in the State free from all encumbrances with effect from 1st Baishakh 1363 B.S. Since the order passed by the Learned Tribunal on 18th May, 2011 in O.A. No. 3114 of 2003 (LRTT) was not adhered to by the successor in office, a contempt proceeding was initiated being M.A. 1148 of 2011 against him. In the said contempt proceeding, the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. submitted compliance report stating, inter alia, that the order passed by the Learned Tribunal on 18th May, 2011 has been complied with by passing an order on 15th February, 2012. The Learned Tribunal after considering the compliance report and the order passed by the said Revenue Officer (Successor in office) on 15th January, 2001 came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Learned Tribunal on 18th May, 2011 has not been complied with by the concerned Revenue Officer. The Learned Tribunal held that the order passed by his predecessor on 15th January, 2001 attained its finality and as such, his successor was required only to tamil the order passed by his predecessor in office on 18th May, 2011. The Learned Tribunal held that the order passed by his predecessor on 15th January, 2001 attained its finality and as such, his successor was required only to tamil the order passed by his predecessor in office on 18th May, 2011. The Learned Tribunal further held that the successor in office was not vested with the power of review and as such, he ought not to have passed the order on 15th February, 2012 by upsetting the order passed by his predecessor in office on 15th January, 2001. Under such circumstances, the order passed by the concerned Revenue Officer on 15th February, 2012 was set aside and the order passed by his predecessor in office on 15th January, 2001 was upheld. The concerned B.L. & L.R.O was directed to give effect to the order passed by his predecessor in office on 15th January, 2001 in strict compliance of the direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this High Court within three months from the date of communication of the said order. The legality and/or correctness of the said order is under challenge in this application at the instance of the said B.L. & L.R.O. After considering the entire materials on record, we do not find any illegality and/or infirmity in the order passed by the Learned Tribunal. It was rightly held by the Learned Tribunal that the Revenue Officer has not been vested with the jurisdiction to review the order passed by his predecessor in office. Review is the creature of statute. Unless the review jurisdiction is vested with an authority under the Act and/or a statute, no authority can review its earlier order. Thus, we hold that the Learned Tribunal was absolutely justified in directing the Revenue Officer to implement the order passed by the Revenue Officer on 15th January, 2001 in Misc. Case No. 6 of 2000 which attained its finality. It may be mentioned herein that even an erroneous order is binding upon any party unless it is set aside by higher forum. Since the order passed by the Revenue Officer on 15th January, 2001 has not been upset by any higher forum that order still remains operative in the field which his successor cannot avoid to implement. Thus, we find no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition thus, stands rejected.