IMPORTANT POINTS
Renewal of lease is a fresh lease and it shall be governed by the law prevailing at the relevant time.
Section 6(3) of WBEA Act and section 14Z of WBLR Act apply to land beyond ceiling limit.

Headnote:CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2548 OF 2006
       (a) West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules, 1954 – Rule 4 – Schedule F – Clause 1A and 1B – On transfer of lease respondent company replacing original lessee in 1990 – Lease expiring in 1998 – Amendment requiring salami brought in 1994 – Respondent neither liable to pay salami up to 1998 nor any demand made – Renewal of lease after 1998, a fresh lease – Demand for period 1998 onward – Not retrospective – No error in demand notice. (Para 31, 35)
       (2004) 1 SCC 1; (1997) 1 SCC 650; (2004) 12 SCC 118 – Relied upon
       (1995) 1 SCC 478 – Referred
       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2549 OF 2006
       (b) West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1954 – Section 6(1) and 6(3) r/w section 14Z, West Bengal Land Reform Act – Writ petitioner held land comprised in mill and factory measuring about 4.54 acres – Well within ceiling under both Acts – Section 6(3) of WBEA Act and section 14Z of WBLR Act apply to land beyond ceiling limit – Writ petitioner holding land, well within ceiling limit, u/s 6(1) of WBEA Act and as raiyat u/s 3A r/w section 4 and 2(7) – Therefore section 6(3) of WBEA Act and section 14Z of WBLR Act do not apply – Land, within ceiling limit, held with heritable and transferable right – Section 14Z(2) does not apply – Impugned judgment not sustainable. (Para 38)
       Facts of the case:
       (1) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2548 OF 2006
       The respondent-writ petitioner held the land measuring about 4.54 acres comprised in a factory or mill together with structures even before the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 came into force. As a result of notification under Section 4 and effects thereof under Section 5 of the WBEA Act all the land comprised in factory vested in the State. However, by reason of Section 6(1)(g) read with Section 6(3) of that Act, the Company was allowed to retain all the lands comprised in factory as the State Government was of the opinion that the Company required all the lands for the purpose of the factory.
       However, in 1996, it came to the notice of the State Government that the Company had alienated almost half of the land and no land was being used for the purpose of the factory, which remained closed since 1993. In exercise of the power conferred on it by the proviso to Section 6(3) of the Act, the State Government by order dated 2nd April, 1996 revised the order and resumed 3.76 acres of land as surplus as in the opinion of the State Government the company did not require the land for the purpose of running its factory. The Company challenged that order but the Tribunal dismissed their application.
       Their appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
       (2) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2549 OF 2006
       The tea estate known as Zurantee Tea Estate (Zurantee) was leased out by the Government of West Bengal in favour of Chulsa Tea Company being limited for a period of 30 years on 30th January, 1975. In the record of right prepared under the WBEA Act, the land was recorded to have been permitted to be retained under Section 6(3) of the WBEA Act. The original lease was granted on 1st April, 1924 and expired before the WBEA Act came into force. In 1976, Chulsa sold Zurantee to Darjeeling Dooars Plantations (Tea) Ltd.
       The Government of West Bengal issued a notification on 1st June, 1994 amending Schedule ‘F’ of the WBEA Rules inserting Clause 1A and 1B to be incorporated in the lease requiring payment of salami of Rs.15,000/-per hectare of land leased out before further renewal of the lease in cases renewal was asked for by a transferee allowing the transferee to enjoy the balance period of the lease transferred. The respondent-Company applied for the renewal of lease of the Zurantee for a period of 30 years on 10th March, 1998 and a deed renewing the lease was executed on 12th March, 1998 in favour of the respondent-Company.
       In March, 2002, the Collector demanded a sum of Rs.1,10,50,200/-as salami in respect of renewal of the said lease pursuant to the amended clause, which was challenged by the respondent-Company before the Tribunal.
       The Tribunal upheld the notification imposing salami on transfer of tea estate.
       The respondent-Company moved the High Court by way of writ petition, which was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2549 OF 2006 is not sustainable while there is no error in the impugned judgment in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2549 OF 2006.
       Result: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2549 OF 2006 allowed while CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2549 OF 2006 dismissed.

JUDGMENT

M. Y. EQBAL, J.

These appeals by special leave are directed against the common judgment and order dated 6.10.2005 of the Calcutta High Court, whereby Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petitions preferred by the respondents herein against the decision of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (in short, ‘the Tribunal’) dismissing their original applications moved against the respective order passed by the Government of West Bengal resuming the lands held by them.

2. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has disposed of three writ petitions primarily observing that although the facts are different there are certain communions of identity within the question to be answered and certain common principles of law are involved in the writ petitions.

3. In the matter of Calcutta Mineral Supply Co. Pvt. Ltd. (being Civil Appeal No.2548 of 2006), the respondent-writ petitioner held the land measuring about 4.54 acres comprised in a factory or mill together with structures even before the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (in short, ‘WBEA Act’) came into force. Factual matrix of this case is that as a result of notification under Section 4 and effects thereof under Section 5 of the WBEA Act all the land comprised in factory vested in the State. However, by reason of Section 6(1)(g) read with Section 6(3) of that Act, the Company was allowed to retain all the lands comprised in factory as the State Government was of the opinion that the Company required all the lands for the purpose of the factory.

4. However, in 1996, it came to the notice of the State Government that the Company had alienated almost half of the land and no land was being used for the purpose of the factory, which remained closed since 1993. In exercise of the power conferred on it by the proviso to Section 6(3) of the Act, the State Government by order dated 2nd April, 1996 revised the order and resumed 3.76 acres of land as surplus as in the opinion of the State Government the company did not require the land for the purpose of running its factory. The Company challenged that order by way of a writ petition, which stood transmitted to the aforesaid Tribunal and was dismissed. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Company preferred writ petition before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside order of the Tribunal holding that order dated 2nd April, 1996 was not a speaking order and directing the State Government to consider the matter afresh. Thereafter, Special Secretary of the State Government passed speaking order directing resumption of the land allowed to be retained by the respondent-Company. This order was challenged by the respondents, but the Tribunal dismissed their application.

5. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, Company again moved the High Court by way of a writ petition, which was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment. The High Court quashed the order of resumption passed by the State Government as also the judgment of the Tribunal and held that the exercise of power under the WBEA Act in the instant case was without jurisdiction and that the respondents having held land within the ceiling limit had acquired the status of raiyat with heritable and transferable right and cannot be subjected to Section 14-Z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

6. In the matter of Darjeeling Dooars Plantations (Tea) Ltd. (being Civil Appeal No.2549 of 2006), the tea estate known as Zurantee Tea Estate (Zurantee) was leased out by the Government of West Bengal in favour of Chulsa Tea Company (in short, ‘Chulsa’) being limited for a period of 30 years on 30th January, 1975. In the record of right prepared under the WBEA Act, the land was recorded to have been permitted to be retained under Section 6(3) of the WBEA Act. The original lease was granted on 1st April, 1924 and expired before the WBEA Act came into force. In 1976, Chulsa sold Zurantee to Darjeeli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 399

IMPORTANT POINTSRenewal of lease is a fresh lease and it shall be governed by the law prevailing at the relevant time. Section 6(3) of WBEA Act and section 14Z of WBLR Act apply to land beyond ceiling limit.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINTS
Renewal of lease is a fresh lease and it shall be governed by the law prevailing at the relevant time.
Section 6(3) of WBEA Act and section 14Z of WBLR Act apply to land beyond ceiling limit.