Judgment

N.M.KASLIWAL, J.

(1) BOTH the above appeals by grant of special leave are directed against the common order of the High court dated 15/09/1981 as such the same are disposed of by one single order.

(2) THE respondent Messrs Singell Tea and Agricultural Industries Limited, a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (in short the Company) filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High court on 22/04/1981 challenging the order dated 16/04/1981 issued by the Collector, Darjeeling whereby possession of the tea garden known as M/s Singell Tea Estate was taken over with effect from 16/04/1981. In view of the fact that the West Bengal Tea Development Corporation Limited, a Government Company (in short the Corporation) had been handed over the possession of the tea garden on 21/04/1981, the said Corporation was also impleaded as a party respondent.

(3) THE State of West Bengal enacted the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to provide for the State acquisition of estates, of rights of intermediaries therein and of certain rights of raiyats and under-raiyats and of the rights of certain other persons in lands comprised in estates. The State government also issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act vesting all estates and rights of every intermediary in the State free from all encumbrances. This notification also covered the land comprised in the tea garden known as M/s Singell Tea Estate. The Revenue Officer, Kurseong, Darjeeling issued notices to the Company initiating proceedings for assessment of rent of the said tea garden. The Company appeared in the said proceedings and contended that it was not an intermediary within the meaning of the Act and the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the said tea garden as the same was a freehold land and the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to assess the rent under Section 42(2 of the Act. The Revenue Officer rejected the contentions of the Company and passed two orders fixing the rent at Rs. 2,375.94 per year. The government being not satisfied with the quantum of rent determined by the Revenue Officer took further proceedings for the revision of the entries in the record of rights in respect of the tea garden and in those proceedings the Revenue Officer by order dated 22/08/1968 redetermined the rent at Rs. 8,769.24 per year.

(4) THE Company aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Revenue Officer preferred two appeals before the District Judge, Darjeeling acting as tribunal under Ss. (3 of the Section 44 of the Act. Both the appeals were dismissed in default. The Company filed two applications for restoration of the appeals under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but both the applications were dismissed by the learned District Judge by his order dated 16/08/1975. The Company then filed two applications under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution in the High court challenging the aforesaid orders of the District Judge dated 16/08/1975. A division bench of the High court by its order dated 1/10/1975 granted interim stay of the operation of the order of the Revenue Officer dated 22/08/1968. During the pendency of the aforesaid cases in the High court, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling by his letter dated 20/06/1979 informed the Manager of Singell Tea Estate that in spite of repeated reminders, the Company had not executed the long term lease for 30 years on prepayment of the requisite number of instalments of rent and cesses.

(5) THE above-mentioned letter of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Darjeeling was received by the Company on 8/08/1979 and was replied by the Solicitor of the Company by letter dated 13/08/1979. In the reply, it was pointed out that the High court had granted the stay order and as such requested the Additional Deputy Commissi