State Of W. B. vs Scene Screen Private LTD.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2000 Supreme(SC) 1608

2000(7) Supreme 92
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Calcutta High Court)
D.P. Mohapatra & R.P. Sethi, JJ.
State of West Bengal & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Scene Screen (Pvt.) Ltd. & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 834 of 1981
Decided on 28-9-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Tapas Ray, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Radha Rangaswamy, and Jaideep Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Shipra Ghose, P.K. Mukherjee, Arun K. Sinha, Manoj Chatterjee, Ms. K. Iyer, Ms. Nandini Mukherjee, and Rakesh Singh, Advocates.

Headnote:West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953-Section 6-Right of intermediary to retain land-Land in question stood recorded in Records of Right, prior to coming into force of WBEA Act, in name of petitioner s father-Land leased out to Cinema house-Petitioner submitted Form B proposing to retain land covered by lease to Cinema house as intermediary-In records of Right prepared under Section 39 of WBEA Act name of lessor recorded as non-agricultural tenant under petitioner-Government, however, collecting rent from tenant on ground property vested with Government tenant became tenant under Government-Not justified-Petitioner entitled to retain possession of land in question-Khas possession is not a condition precedent for claim of right of retention under Section 6(1)(b).
       Held : The question that remains to be considered is whether the Division Bench was right in setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge holding inter alia that the petitioner respondent No. 2 herein was not entitled to retain the land in dispute because he was not in khas possession of the same. In our considered view the Division Bench was right in setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge. (Para 21)
       Section 6(1)(b) does not lay down that intermediary should be in khas possession of the land comprised in or appertaining to buildings or structures, whether erected by him or not. On a close look at the Section 6 it is manifest that wherever the legislature intended to lay down the requirement of "khas possession" as a condition precedent for the claim of right of retention it expressly stated so. In this connection the provisions of Section 6(1)(c) and (d) may be seen. Section 6(1)(b) clearly and unambiguously lays down that the intermediary shall be entitled to retain the land comprised in or appertaining to buildings or structures whether erected by the intermediary or not. It is a well accepted principle of interpretation of statutory provisions that if the plain language of the section is clear or unambiguous it is not open to a Court to interpret it giving a meaning different from the plain grammatical meaning of the provision. The learned single Judge, in view of the plain and unambiguous language of the provisions of the Act, was in error in introducing the condition of khas possession in Section 6(1)(b) even though the section made no such provision. Equally incorrect was the reason by the learned single Judge that if the requirement of khas possession by the intermediary is not read into that section it will result in discrimination between different categories of lands which the intermediary may be entitled to retain. Each clause of Section 6(1) refers to a separate category of land. The reason for and the wisdom of the legislature in insisting on khas possession in respect of certain categories of land while not insisting upon the same in others, cannot be questioned. We are therefore of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court rightly set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge. In conclusion while not agreeing with the reasoning in the judgment of the Division Bench under challenge we endorse its decision that the respondent No. 2 is entitled to retain the land which was leased in favour of the respondent No.1 for construction of the cinema hall. (Paras 22 and 23)

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-State of West Bengal represented by the Secretary Land and Land Reforms Department, the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Barrackpore Circle, P.S. Khardah, Distt. 24 Parganas and the Additional Collector and Additional District Magistrate (Land Reforms), 24 Parganas (North) have filed this appeal assailing the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated 7.4.1977 allowing the Appeal from Original Order No. 409 of 1961 filed by Sasthidas Malik, (respondent No. 2 herein) on setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 915/59. The Civil Rule was filed by Sasthidas Malik who will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner.

2. The dispute raised in the case relates to the question whether the writ petitioner is entitled to retain the lands comprised in plot Nos. 11 and 32 under Khatyan Nos. 21 and 390 respectively of Mouza Kalidah extending over an area of 2.3432 acres, under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In the records of right published in the year 1931 the lands were recorded in the name of the petitioner s father and as having pucca structures therein. By two indentures of lease dated 26.11.1947 and 25.8.1952. Prosad Das Malik, father of the petitioner, gave lease of the said two plots of land to M/s. Scene Screen (Pvt.) Ltd., respondent No. 1 herein, (hereinafter referred to as the lessee), for the purpose of building a cinema house and shop rooms, for a term of 30 years on payment of rent mentioned in the documents. After the death of his father the petitioner had become the owner of the said lands. After coming into force of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 the petitioner submitted a return in Form B proposing to retain the lands covered by the said leases as an intermediary under Section 6 of the Act. In the record of rights prepared under Section 39 of the Act the lands were recorded in the name of respondent No. 1 as a non-agricultural tenant under the petitioner. When the petitioner demanded arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 4725/- from the lessee it replied that as a result of operation of the provisions of the Act the petitioner was no longer entitled to receive the rent which was beingpaid to the Government of West Bengal. Faced with the situation the petitioner filed the writ petition contending inter-alia that the State Government has no right to collect rent from the - lessee as under section 6(1)(b) of the Act the petitioner is entitled to retain the lands and he has elected to do so by submitting the return in Form B including these lands. Having failed to get favourable response from the officers concerned of the State the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking inter alia a writ of mandamus directing the State Government and its officers not to recognise the lessee as a tenant under the State and not to realise rent from it.

3. In the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 to the writ petition, who are the appellants herein, the gist of the case pleaded was that the petitioner was not entitled to retain the rent receiving interest in respect of the land leased in favour of the respondent-lessee. Even though the leases were created prior to the date of coming into force of the Act. Reference was made to Section 5(c) of the Act in support of the contention that the lessor s interest created in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner had vested in the State on April 14, 1955 on the same terms and conditions as agreed between the lessor and the lessee on the date of vesting.

4. The learned single Judge in his judgment noticed the relevant provisions of the Act particularly Section 6(1)(b) of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment of the Act by the West Bengal Act 9 of 1961 which was published in the Gazette on April 24, 1961 and held that the Section 6 aims on taking away all the lands of intermedi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday