2024 Supreme(SC) 316
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Bina Basak & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sri Bipul Kanti Basak & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5525 of 2016
Decided On : 21-03-2024
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR Dr. Lokendra Malik, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Uday Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR
Headnote:
Rehabilitation Programme - Property Allotment - West Bengal Relief and Rehabilitation Department - [PROPERTY ALLOTMENT] - [West Bengal Relief and Rehabilitation Department] - [Rehabilitation of Displaced Families Act, Section 4(1)(a); Property Allotment Act, Section 2(3)] - The court emphasized that rehabilitation programmes are meant for the re-establishment of displaced families, not for individual benefit. The property is recorded in the name of one family member for convenience, but the welfare is meant for all family members equally. The court condemned the misuse of welfare legislations for personal advantage, defeating the objective of such policies.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a property allotment by the West Bengal Relief and Rehabilitation Department to a family that migrated from East Pakistan in 1950. The de facto head of the family claimed sole ownership of the property, leading to a legal dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property allotment was meant for the entire family, not for individual benefit. The plaintiff's attempt to claim exclusive ownership was condemned as a misuse of welfare legislations. The court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the First Appellate Court, restoring the decision of the Trial Court.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the rightful ownership and possession of the property, the misuse of welfare legislations, and the family's entitlement to the property allotment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that rehabilitation programmes are meant for the re-establishment of displaced families, not for individual benefit. The property is recorded in the name of one family member for convenience, but the welfare is meant for all family members equally. The court condemned the misuse of welfare legislations for personal advantage, defeating the objective of such policies.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the High Court and the First Appellate Court were set aside. The decision of the Trial Court was restored, ruling in favor of the family's entitlement to the property allotment.
ORDER :
(Vikram Nath, J.) :
1. This matter pertains to right to title and possession of a property that was allotted by the Relief and Rehabilitation Department of Government of West Bengal to a family which had come to Siliguri from the then East Pakistan in 1950. Before moving forward with the facts of the case, it is imperative for us to mention that such rehabilitation programmes are introduced by the government with the sole aim of re-establishment of the displaced/ migrant families and not for the benefit of any individual. As a part of such welfare policies, the property is usually recorded in the name of one family member for the purpose of convenience even though the ensuing welfare is meant to be enjoyed by the all the family members equally. However unfortunately, in the instant case greed got better of the de facto head of the family who has been claiming herself as the absolute owner of the property. The matter is a prime example where the plaintiff attempted to defeat the rightful claims of family members with the intention of usurping the entire property. We cannot emphasize enough that this Court highly deprecates such malpractices where the welfare legislations are misused/abused by beneficiaries for personal advantage, thereby defeating the very objective of such policies.
2. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 18.12.2013 passed by the Calcutta High Court dismissing the Second Appeal No.518 of 2008 filed by the appellants herein confirming the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 11.04.2003 whereby it had reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 16.09.1999 dismissing the suit of the present respondents and allowing the counter claim filed by the present appellants in Original Civil Suit No.16 of 1983.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are summarized hereunder:
3.1. Late Krishna Behari Basak had three sons namely Benode Behari Basak, Bimal Kanti Basak and Benoy Krishna Basak. Late Krishna Behari Basak was a resident of East Pakistan and his family had migrated to India in 1950 soon after the partition. The eldest son Benode Behari Basak was employed in the Collectorate, Darjeeling since 01.03.1945 and at the relevant time he was working in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Darjeeling. Benode Behari Basak applied (supported by affidavit) for allotment of land in his name for the benefit of the refugee family which comprised of the following seven members namely:
| S.No. | Name | Relation | Age |
| 1. | Sri Bimal Kanti Basak | Brother | 24 years |
| 2. | Sri Benoy Krishna Basak | Brother | 13 years |
| 3. | Srimati Hem Prova Basak | Wife | 20 years |
| 4. | Sri Bipul Kanti Basak | Son | 6 years |
| 5. | Sjta. Drabanmayee Basak | Grand mother | 85 years |
| 6. | Sriman Ajit Kumar Basak | Nephew | 9 years |
| 7. | Srimati Kamala Basak | Sister | 27 years |
3.2. In the said affidavit dated 30.12.1952, it is clearly stated that the deponent was residing at Darjeeling and was in occupation as a government servant; that he had a permanent house in village Sailabari, Post Office Khosabari, District Pabna which has since become a part of eastern Pakistan; the family members were compelled to leave the native place in July 1950 due to partition of India; all family members have decided to settle in the Indian Union; he was working in the office of the Deputy Commissioner since 1945 and had opted to serve under the West Bengal Government.
3.3. Another affidavit was filed by Smt. Hem Prova Basak wife of Benode Behari Basak dated 13.11.1953. In the said affidavit it was stated that they had to leave their house and properties in Pakistan worth about Rs.50,000/-, on account of communal disturbance; she along with the whole family consisting of five family members had come to West Bengal in July 1950 with the object of permanently residing in the Union of India; that she was a bona fide refugee and now a domicile and a national