Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 238 (CAL)

Bhabani Maiti v. State Of West Bengal

2021-04-13

ANIRUDDHA ROY, RAJESH BINDAL

body2021
JUDGMENT Aniruddha Roy, J. - This writ petition has been has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated December 13, 2019 (for short, the impugned order) passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 3178 of 2007 (Bhabani Maiti vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) [for short, the Original Application], whereunder, the Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The petitioner claimed to be the owner of a piece of land being Plot No. 370/411 measuring about 7.5. decimals which is equivalent to about 3276 Barga Foot under Mouza-Dakhin Hazipur, Ward No. 14, J.L. No. 90 Khatian No.- 203 (Sabek), District- 24 Parganas (South) (for short, the land). 3. By virtue of two registered deeds of conveyance dated May 30, 1990 and November 13, 1997, the petitioner purchased the land from one Murati Mohan Naskar and one Dibakar Halder respectively. The petitioner claimed to be in possession of the land and had constructed his dwelling house thereupon. Murati had purchased the land from one Amullya Ganguly in the year 1958. On April 1, 1950 Amullya obtained lease in respect of the land from the Khas Mahal Department for a period of five years. The petitioner after purchasing the said land filed an application before the block land and Land Reforms Officer to have his name recorded in respect thereof in the record of right on the basis of the said two registered deeds of conveyance. Such claim of the petitioner was rejected. 4. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner moved a writ petition before this Court. This Court by its order dated August 11, 1998 directed the Block Land & Reforms Officer (for short, BL & LRO) to consider and dispose of the case of the petitioner with a reasoned order. Pursuant to and in terms of the said direction the BLLRO by its order dated October 31, 2005 rejected the claim of the petitioner for mutation and/or correction of record of rights and held that the land belongs to the State. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed a statutory appeal which was dismissed by an order dated March 7, 2007 passed by the Deputy District Land & Land Reforms Officer (for short, DL & LRO) by holding that the land belonged to the State being Khas Mohal property and not a Ryoti land. 5. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed a statutory appeal which was dismissed by an order dated March 7, 2007 passed by the Deputy District Land & Land Reforms Officer (for short, DL & LRO) by holding that the land belonged to the State being Khas Mohal property and not a Ryoti land. 5. Being dissatisfied with the order dated March 7, 2007 passed by the DL & LRO the petitioner filed the Original Application before the Tribunal praying for the following reliefs:- " a) An appropriate order setting aside the order dated 7.3.07 passed by The Appellate Authority, The Learned Deputy District Land and Land Reforms Officer, 24-Parganas (South) in L.A. Appeal No.9 of 06 and the order dated 31.10.05 being order no.5, passed by The Learned Revenue Officer, Diamond-Harbour-I, 24-Parganas (South) in Misc. case no.3. b) An appropriate order/direction to the respondents to correct the record-of-rights in the light of the judgement and decree passed by The Learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Diamond-Harbour, 24-parganas (South) in Title suit no. 76 of 1977 and also interims of the representatives and the notices as issued by The Learned Revenue Officer, 24-Parganas (South). c) An appropriate order/direction to the respondents concerned to bring the records of the case for which so that necessary orders can be passed after looking the same. d) Any other relief or further reliefs passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal, which deem fit and proper. e) Costs and incidentials thereto" 6. The Original Application was dismissed by the impugned order. 7. Mr. Biswajit Sau appearing for petitioner submitted that, the lease granted to Amullya by the Khas Mohal Department was renewed from time to time. By virtue of operation of Section 4 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, the 1953 Act) the land had been vested in the State free from all incumbrances when Amullya was in possession. Amullya's name was recorded in the R.S. Record of Right under the provision of Section 44 of the said 1953 Act. Amullya had paid rent to the State regularly. In 1958 (17th Chaitra 1364 BS) Amullya sold the land to Murati and since then Murati was in Khas possession of the land. Amullya's name was recorded in the R.S. Record of Right under the provision of Section 44 of the said 1953 Act. Amullya had paid rent to the State regularly. In 1958 (17th Chaitra 1364 BS) Amullya sold the land to Murati and since then Murati was in Khas possession of the land. Thereafter Murati filed an objection case under Section 44 (2a) of the 1953 Act before the appropriate authority when by an order dated April 29, 1960 the name of Murati was recorded as Raiyat in the R.S. record of right. The said order was not challenged. 8. Murati then in 1977 filed title suit no.76 of 1977 in which a decree was passed on February 18, 1986 by the Civil Court. The suit was for declaration of the plaintiff's title, confirmation of possession and injunction and to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. Under the decree the right, title and interest of Murati as tenant in respect of the land was declared in his favour and a decree for confirmation of possession of the land was also passed in his favour. The defendants were permanently restrained from interfering with the possession of Murati on the land. Murati was also granted a decree for recovery of possession against the defendants who were also in possession of the suit land. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, the said decree had achieved finality and the right of Murati who is the predecessor in interest of the petitioner in the land had crystallized and the petitioner being the successor in interest of Murati is entitled to get benefit of the said decree. It was further argued that, since the adjudication under Section 44(2a) of the 1953 Act and also in the said civil suit were in favour of Murati, the petitioner being the successor in interest is the beneficiary of such adjudication and the appropriate authority was obliged to enter the name of the petitioner in the relevant record of rights relating to the land. The petitioner also relied upon an information slip issued by the Office of the Revenue Officer, Diamond Harbour, where from it appeared that the land was not a vested one. 9. Mr. The petitioner also relied upon an information slip issued by the Office of the Revenue Officer, Diamond Harbour, where from it appeared that the land was not a vested one. 9. Mr. Sau, Learned Advocate, further submitted that, when a proceeding had attained finality both in terms of Section 44 of the 1953 Act and by a Civil Court decree confirming the right, title and interest of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner over and in respect of the land, no authority or Tribunal could take a view contrary to such finding and could not refuse to record name of the petitioner in the R.S. record of rights and the same could not be reviewed or revisited. 10. In support of the aforesaid contentions the following decisions were relied upon: a) In the matter of: State of West Bengal vs. Karan Singh Binayak and others, (2002) AIR SC 1543 . b) In the matter of: Benode Behari Ghosal vs. Shew Kamal Singh and others, (1984) AIR Calcutta 122, 1983 SCCOnlineCal 15: : (1983) 2 CHN 98 . c) In the matter of: Debendra Tripathy and others vs. State of West Bengal and others, (1974) AIR SC 1380 . d) In the matter of: Mahammad Salem Jan Mia vs. State of West Bengal and others, 1976 2 CalLJ . e) In the matter of: Azizua Subhan vs. Union of India and others, (1966) AIR Calcutta 570 . f) In the matter of: Khitish Chandra Kamila vs. State of West Bengal and others, 2004 1 CalHN . g) In the matter of: Haranath Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal and others, 67 CalWN 129 . 11. Mr. Chandi Charan De with Mr. Anirban Sarkar, Advocates, representing the State, at the outset drew attention of this Court to Order No. 5 dated October 31, 2005 in Misc. Case No. 37 of 1999 and submitted that, after a detailed fact finding enquiry on the basis of the relevant material the BL & LRO, 24-Parganas (South) passed his order in which there was a specific finding that, the lease granted by Khas Mohal Department in favour of Amullya was for five years and the same was never extended and expired in 1955. It was also a specific finding in the said order that the name of Murati had been deleted and the name of Khas Mohal Department was recorded in the record of right. It was also a specific finding in the said order that the name of Murati had been deleted and the name of Khas Mohal Department was recorded in the record of right. It was then submitted by the Learned State Counsel that, since the basis of the claim of the petitioner had gone with the expiry of the lease in favour of Amulyya neither Murati, the petitioner could not claim any right, title or interest over the land and the land still belongs to the Khas Mohal Department of the State. Thus, the question of entering the name of the petitioner in the record of right did not and could not arise. The said order dated October 31, 2005 passed by the BL & LRO still holds the field. 12. The Learned State Counsel further drew our attention to diverse portions of the impugned order where from it appeared that, the petitioner had already submitted an application on August 3, 2016 before the appropriate authority for obtaining long term lease in respect of the land upon accepting the present status of the land. It was also pointed out to this Court that, despite repeated queries being raised by the Tribunal to the petitioner applicant to produce relevant material, if any, to controvert the said order of the BL & LRO dated October 31, 2005, no such record or document was produced on behalf of the petitioner. 13. In reply Mr. Sau submitted that, the name of Murati was deleted in the record of right as appears from the said order dated October 31, 2005 passed by the BL & LRO, wholly in an illegal and wrongful manner and without following the established procedure of law and as such no step could have been taken on the basis of such illegal and wrong finding. He submitted that, this Court in exercise of its plenary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can take cognizance of the same and can rectify and correct the finding of the BL & LRO. 14. After hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials before this Court it appears that, the original lease granted by the Khas Mohal Department in favour of Amullya was for a period of five years and the same had expired in 1955 by efflux of time. Such lease was never renewed. 14. After hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials before this Court it appears that, the original lease granted by the Khas Mohal Department in favour of Amullya was for a period of five years and the same had expired in 1955 by efflux of time. Such lease was never renewed. In 1958 when Amulya allegedly sold the land to Murati, it is evident that, he had no right to do so. In fact after 1955 when the lease expired, the possession of Amullya became unlawful and unauthorized. Therefore, Amullya could not be termed as 'intermediary' within the definition of 1953 Act. Amullya being a mere interloper in the land could not also be termed as 'Raiyat' within the meaning of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (for short, 1955 Act). Therefore, Amullya could not claim to have any right under Section 4 of the 1955 Act. Whatever right, title or interest on the land is claimed by the petitioner, the same has to flow from his predecessor in interest namely Amullya and Murati. Since the transfer by Amullya to Murati is not a valid transfer the petitioner cannot claim any right on the land as their successor in interest. In fact, the petitioner failed to make out any case or produce any evidence to controvert the finding of BL & LRO made in his order dated October 31, 2005 which was upheld by the appellate authority in its order dated March 7, 2007, despite opportunity being granted by the Tribunal. 15. In as much as, the order impugned before the Tribunal was passed by the appellate authority vide March 7, 2007. The Original Application was filed in 2007 and on August 3, 2016, during the pendency of the Original Application, the petitioner being applicant before the Tribunal applied for a long term lease before the appropriate authority upon accepting the present status of the land. The applicant could not blow hot and cold at the same time. 16. From a close perusal of the order of BL & LRO dated October 31, 2005, the order of the appellate authority dated March 7, 2007 and the impugned order, it appears to this Court that none of the adjudicating authority had revisited the order passed under Section 44 of the 1953 Act neither reviewed the same. 16. From a close perusal of the order of BL & LRO dated October 31, 2005, the order of the appellate authority dated March 7, 2007 and the impugned order, it appears to this Court that none of the adjudicating authority had revisited the order passed under Section 44 of the 1953 Act neither reviewed the same. All the adjudicating authorities came to an unanimous conclusion on the basis of a detailed fact finding enquiry held by the BL & LRO in Misc. Case No. 37 of 1999. Thus, the ratio of the judgments relied upon on behalf of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case are not applicable. 17. This Court does not find that the Tribunal while passing the impugned order had committed any jurisdictional error. The impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on proper and correct appreciation of materials before it. The impugned order, thus, deserves no interference. 18. In view of our fore going discussions and the reasons stated, the present writ petition being W.P.L.R.T. 23 of 2020 stands dismissed. 19. There shall, however, no order as to costs.