Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
28th November, 1962
S.J. IMAM, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Nibaran Chandra Bag, Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Nath Gihughu (deceased), after him his heir and legal representative, Respondent.
AND VICE VERSA
Civil appeals Nos. 105 and 106 of 1960
Advocates appeared
Mr. N.. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (Mr. D.N. Mukherjee, Advocate, with him), for Appellant (In C.A. No. l05 of 1960) and Respondent (In C.A. No. 106 of 1960); Mr. K. B. Bagchi, Advocate and Mr. S.N. Mukherjee, Advocate for Mr. Sukumar Ghose, Advocate, for Respondent (In C. A. No. 105 of 1960) and Appellant (In C. A. No. 106 of 1960).
Civil Revn. Case No. 1851 of 1956, D/- 20-2-1957 - Cal.
WEST BENGAL ESTATES ACQUISITION ACT, 1953 - SECTION 44(1) - REVENUE OFFICER'S JURISDICTION TO DECIDE OBJECTIONS TO DRAFT RECORD-OF-RIGHTS - HIGH COURT'S INTERFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 227 - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Niraban Chandra Bag, was recorded as a raiyat in the draft record-of-rights prepared under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The respondent, Mhahendra Nath Ghughu, filed an objection to this entry, claiming that he was the raiyat and that the appellant was a tenure holder. The Assistant Settlement Officer found that the appellant was a tenure holder and that the respondent was a temporary lessee for a period of two years. The District Judge upheld these findings. The High Court, on a petition under Article 227, set aside the entry of the respondent's name as a temporary lessee, holding that there was no material to support the finding.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the Revenue authorities. The Court held that the Assistant Settlement Officer had jurisdiction to decide the objections raised by the respondent to the draft record-of-rights in so far as it related to the status of the appellant. The Court also held that there was material to support the finding that the respondent was a temporary lessee for a period of two years.
Issues: 1. Whether the Assistant Settlement Officer had jurisdiction to decide the objections raised by the respondent to the draft record-of-rights in so far as it related to the status of the appellant? 2. Whether there was material to support the finding that the respondent was a temporary lessee for a period of two years?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Assistant Settlement Officer had jurisdiction to decide the objections raised by the respondent to the draft record-of-rights in so far as it related to the status of the appellant because: a. The respondent had raised an objection to the status of the appellant in his petition of amendment. b. The appellant had consented to the amendment being allowed. c. The Assistant Settlement Officer, the District Judge, and the learned judges in the High Court had adduced several cogent and convincing reasons for the finding that the appellant was a tenure holder and not a raiyat. 2. The Court held that there was material to support the finding that the respondent was a temporary lessee for a period of two years because: a. The respondent was in possession of the land from January 1954, which was admitted by the appellant. b. The only question for consideration was whether the respondent was a lessee, as he claimed, or a manager and caretaker in the employ of the appellant, as the appellant claimed. c. The Assistant Settlement Officer had drawn an inference adverse to the appellant from the non-production of his accounts, which would have established that the respondent was his manager. d. The Assistant Settlement Officer had also drawn an inference adverse to the appellant from the receipt of Rs. 3,000/- by the appellant, which the appellant claimed was damages or mesne profits, but which the respondent claimed was a payment towards rent under a lease. e. The Assistant Settlement Officer had also relied on descriptions of the respondent as lessee in several criminal proceedings between the respondent and third parties. f. The Assistant Settlement Officer had also relied on a compromise between the appellant and the respondent, which provided that the respondent would pay the appellant Rs. 50,000/- in four installments ending with January 1956 and that the respondent would have no title or concern in the land after January 1956.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1960 and allowed Civil Appeal No. 106 of 1960. As a result, the revisions under Article 227 preferred by the appellant to the High Court were dismissed.
Judgement
AYYANGAR, J. : These two appeals by special leave arise out of a single judgment of the High Court at Calcutta. That judgment was rendered in a petition under Art. 227 filed by the Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1960.
2. The proceedings out of which the appeals arise was an application made by Mhahendra Nath Ghughu (whom we shall refer to as the respondent)before the Assistant Settlement Officers 24, Parganas, objecting to certain entries in a draft Record-of-rights prepared and published under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (Act I of 1954) relating to Niraban Chandra Bag (to be referred to as the appellant). Section 44(1) of that Act enacts:
44(1): When a record-of-rights has been prepared or revised, the Revenue officer shale publish a draft of the record so prepared or revised in the prescribed manner and for the prescribed period and shall receive and consider any objections which may be made to any entry therein or to any omission therefrom during the period of such publication.
(2) When all such objections have been considered and disposed of according to such rules as the State Government may make in this behalf the Revenue Officer shall finally frame the record and cause such record to be finally published in the prescribed manner and make a certificate stating the fact of such final publication and the date thereof and shall date and subscribe the same under his name and official designation.
(3) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by a Revenue Officer on any objection made under the sub-section (1) may appeal in the prescribed manner to a tribunal appointed for the purpose of this Section, and within such period and on payment of such court fees as may be prescribed.
3. A draft record-of-rights had been prepared in respect of lands in the village of Howrahmari and it was left for public inspection as prescribed by the rules.
4. The application of the respondent was concerned with the entries in relation to Khatian No. 52. In the draft as published the name of the appellant had been recorded as "a raiyat" in respect of approximately 1500 bighas of land most of which consisted of a fishery. on 29-8-55 within the time limited for receiving objections under Section 44(1) of the Act, the respondent filed an objection by which he prayed that in place of the appellant his own name may be entered as the "raiyat" on the ground that he himself had been in enjoyment and possession of 1200 bighas of this land as a fishery and the rest of the 300 bighas by cultivating it with paddy etc. This objection was registered by the Assistant Settlement Officer. Subsequently thereto and before the petition of objection was disposed of, the respondent filed an amendment to the petition and in this he prayed for a modified relief that the name of the appellant should be recorded as a tenure holder and his own as a lessee under him. The appellant raised no objections to this amendment being allowed and the enquiry in regard to the respondent s petition proceeded before the Assistant Settlement Officer. We shall have occasion to refer to the details of the enquiry before this officer as well as of the order that he passed but to this we shall turn after narrating the history of the proceedings which led to the appeals before us.
5. On the material placed before him, the Assistant Settlement Officer recorded two findings :
(1) That the status of the appellant was not that of a raiyat but of a permanent Mokrarai tenure holder and he accordingly directed such an entry in Khatian No. 52 being recorded.
(2) He found that the respondent was a temporary lessee under the appellant and accordingly directed a subordinate Khatian to be opened in which it would be recorded that the respondent was a temporary lessee for a period of two years during the period January 1954 to January 1956 at a rental of Rs. 25,000/- per year.
6. Under the powers contained in Section 44(3) the District Judge having jurisdiction of the area was the aut
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
