Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. MUKHARJI, B. C. MITRA
MALHATI TEA SYNDICATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
REVENUE OFFICER, JALPAIGURI - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 151 Of 1971
Decided On : FEBRUARY 21, 1972
WEST BENGAL ESTATES ACQUISITION ACT, 1953 - SECTION 6 (3), 42, 42-A - CESS ACT - BENGAL (RURAL) PRIMARY EDUCATION ACT, 1930 - SECTION 29 (2), 30 - COMPANIES ACT, 1956 - SECTION 189, 21, 23 (3) - TEA GARDEN LEASE - INTERMEDIARY - RENT DETERMINATION - CESS REVISION - COMPANY NAME CHANGE - APPEAL COMPETENCY - CROSS-OBJECTION COMPETENCY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tea garden owner, challenged the determination of rent and cess payable under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The Revenue Officer fixed the rent and included Road Cess, Public Works Cess, and Education Cess. The appellant argued that the tea garden was not an estate under the Act and that the Revenue Officer lacked jurisdiction to determine the rent and cess. The respondents cross-objected to the trial court's decision, arguing that the cess revision was lawful and that the appellant was an intermediary under the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant was not an intermediary under the Act and that the Revenue Officer had jurisdiction to determine the rent. The court also held that the cess revision was lawful and that the appellant was liable to pay the revised cess. However, the court found that the appeal was incompetent because it was filed in the name of a company that had ceased to exist. The court also held that the cross-objection was incompetent because it arose out of the incompetent appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was an intermediary under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. 2. Whether the Revenue Officer had jurisdiction to determine the rent and cess payable by the appellant. 3. Whether the cess revision was lawful. 4. Whether the appeal was competent. 5. Whether the cross-objection was competent.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant was not an intermediary under the Act because it was a lessee of a tea garden and not a proprietor of an estate. 2. The court held that the Revenue Officer had jurisdiction to determine the rent and cess payable by the appellant because the appellant was a lessee of a tea garden and the Act empowered the Revenue Officer to determine the rent and cess payable by lessees of tea gardens. 3. The court held that the cess revision was lawful because the Cess Act and the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930 provided for the revision of cess and the appellant was liable to pay the revised cess. 4. The court held that the appeal was incompetent because it was filed in the name of a company that had ceased to exist. 5. The court held that the cross-objection was incompetent because it arose out of the incompetent appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal and the cross-objection were dismissed.
( 1 ) THE appellant is the owner of a tea garden in the district of Jalpaiguri. On December 9, 1937, the then Governor of Bengal granted a lease of 1268. 85 Acres of land in Touzi No. 410, in the district of Jalpaiguri, commonly known as Malhati Tea Estate, under Chapter V of the Bengal Waste Lands Manual, 1936, in favour of the appellant, for a term of 30 years with effect from April 1, 1932, on yearly rent of Rs. 2760. 12. Some other note lands were also settled with the lessee as a part of the tea estate. On expiry of the term of 30 years, the appellant obtained renewal of the lease from year to year, the last of such renewal having been made in March 1965, for the year 1965-66. Under these yearly renewals, the appellant is entitled to renewal of the lease for a further period of one year or such period as the State Government may think fit, subject to the reservation that the decision of the State Government under Section 6 (3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, hereafter referred to as the Act, would be binding on the lessee. The State Government also retained the right to impose such conditions as it may, from time to time, find it necessary. The State Government allowed the appellant to retain the entire area in the tea estate under Section 6 (3) of the Act by an order dated October 10, 1963.
( 2 ) THE Revenue Officer started proceedings under Section 43 (2) and Section 42-A of the Act for fixation of rent payable by the appellant in respect of the tea estate. In this proceeding the Revenue Officer by an order dated November 12, 1965, fixed the rent at Rs. 8,334. 26. In this order there was nothing to indicate that the amount fixed by the Revenue Officer included Road Cess and Public Works Cess of Rs. 366. 98 and Education Cess of Rs. 1,373. 16. The inclusion of the Cess of different kinds was made clear in a memorandum dated February 22, 1966, issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner. The assessment of rent and Cess as above was to take effect from November 1965. Under the original lease the rent payable was Rs. 2,760. 12, Road and P. W. Cess was Rs. 614. 12 and Education Cess was Rupees 723. 76.
( 3 ) ON April 19, 1967, a demand was sent to the appellant for Rs. 59,150. 97 towards arrears of rent and a sum of Rupees 6,527. 01 for arrears of Education Cess. This demand was on the basis of determination made under Section 42 (2) of the Act. Retrospective effect was given to this determination with effect from the date of vesting namely, April 14, 1955.
( 4 ) ON April 29, 1967, the appellant Was informed that unless the arrears claimed were paid, the renewal of the lease could not be granted. As the appellant did not pay the demand, a Certificate was issued for a total claim of Rs. 99,184. 64. Being aggrieved by the issue of the Certificate, the petitioner applied for a Rule Nisi under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting aside the order of determination of rent by the Revenue Officer dated November 12, 1965, the memorandum of the Deputy Commissioner, Jalpaiguri dated February 22, 1966, intimating such determination of the demand dated April 19, 1967, and the Certificate dated November 29, 1967. A rule Nisi was issued and the trial Court made this Rule absolute in part. The revision of liability for Cess made in proceedings under Section 42 (2) of the Act was set aside and declared void. The appellant's prayer as against the assessment of rent was refused. The claim in so far as it related to Cess including Education, Road and P. W. Cess and the Certificate issued for the same, were set aside. The Certificate dated November 29, 1967, was quashed and a writ in the nature of Mandamus was issued directing the Deputy Commissioner not to give effect to or enforce the demand dated April 19, 1967, and the Certificate dated November 29, 1967. This appeal is directed against this order and the respondents have also filed cross-objections against the order relating to Cess and the Cert
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
