Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. N. MUKHERJEE, AMIYA KUMAR MUKHERJI
SAILENDRA NATH NEOGY - Appellant
Versus
PURNENDU SEN - Respondent
Civil Revn. Case 694 Of 1962
Decided On : FEBRUARY 13, 1970
WEST BENGAL NON-AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT, 1949 - SECTION 24 - Vires of Section 24 - Bona fide requirement - Purpose of requirement - Means of pre-emptors - Limitation - Occupation of contiguous lands - Compensation - Held, Section 24 is not violative of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution - Bona fide requirement is established - Purpose of requirement is within the meaning of Section 4 - Means of pre-emptors are not wholly against them - Application for pre-emption is not barred by limitation - Pre-emptors are in occupation of contiguous lands - Petitioner is not entitled to compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased a piece of land and made improvements on it. The opposite parties, who were the landlords of the land, filed an application for pre-emption under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949. The trial court allowed the application for pre-emption subject to payment of compensation to the petitioner for the improvements made by him. The lower appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the order of the trial court. The petitioner then filed a Rule challenging the pre-emption order and the disallowance of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 is not violative of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. The court also held that the opposite parties had a bona fide requirement for the land, that the purpose of the requirement was within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act, that the means of the pre-emptors were not wholly against them, that the application for pre-emption was not barred by limitation, that the pre-emptors were in occupation of contiguous lands, and that the petitioner was not entitled to compensation.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 is violative of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the opposite parties had a bona fide requirement for the land? 3. Whether the purpose of the requirement was within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act? 4. Whether the means of the pre-emptors were sufficient? 5. Whether the application for pre-emption was barred by limitation? 6. Whether the pre-emptors were in occupation of contiguous lands? 7. Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 is not violative of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution because the decision of the Supreme Court in Shibsankar Nandy v. Prabartak Sangha is binding on the court. 2. The court held that the opposite parties had a bona fide requirement for the land because they had a business purpose for the land and they had the means to carry out the purpose. 3. The court held that the purpose of the requirement was within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act because it was a purpose akin to a business purpose. 4. The court held that the means of the pre-emptors were not wholly against them because there was some evidence that they had the means to carry out the purpose. 5. The court held that the application for pre-emption was not barred by limitation because the decision of the Special Bench of this Court in Asmat Ali v. Mujahar Ali is binding on the court. 6. The court held that the pre-emptors were in occupation of contiguous lands because the finding of fact has concurrently been made in favour of the opposite parties by the two courts below and the same has to be accepted. 7. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to compensation because the statute does not provide for any compensation and equitable considerations do not require compensation in this case.
Final Decision: The Rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
( 2 ) THE learned trial Judge allowed the application for pre-emption subject to payment of compensation, amounting to Rs. 400/-, to the petitioner for the alleged improvements, effected by him in the disputed land since his purchase.
( 3 ) THE lower appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the aforesaid order of the learned trial Judge, allowing pre-emption in favour of the opposite parties, and upheld the said order for pre-emption. It also allowed the opposite parties' cross-objection against the grant of compensation by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the petitioner's claim in that respect.
( 4 ) THE petitioner then obtained the present Rule, challenging the preemption order in question and disallowance of compensation.
( 5 ) IN support of the Rule, several points were urged by Mr. Lala. The principal point, however, was the question of the vires of Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, which was challenged on the ground that it was violative of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution.
( 6 ) MR. Lala also made another submission with some seriousness, namely, that, in the instant case, the opposite parties' claim for pre-emption on the ground of bona fide requirement of the disputed land, as contemplated under the said statute, could not be sustained in the absence of a clear finding in their favour that they had the necessary means for effecting the purpose, for which the land was required by them.
( 7 ) OTHER objections were also taken in the trial court and repeated in this Court, namely, that the opposite parties' claim for pre-emption was not for any recognised purpose under the above statute inasmuch as the purpose, for which the land was stated to be required by them, was not a purpose within the meaning of the connected Section 4 of the Act, and the pre-emptors (landlords) were not in khas possession of any contiguous land.
( 8 ) A point of limitation was also raised upon the ground that, although, in the instant case, notice of transfer was not served upon the opposite parties, they had
full knowledge of the same and did not make their application for pre-emption within a reasonable time of the said knowledge.
( 9 ) LASTLY, if was contended that, in any event, the petitioner was entitled to compensation, if any order for preemption was made against him, as the petitioner had made substantial improvements in the disputed land since his purchase.
( 10 ) IN our view, however, on the materials before us, the instant Rule must fail.
( 11 ) ON the question of vires of Section 24, the matter at present seems to be concluded against the petitioner by the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in Shibsankar Nandy v. Prabartak Sangha, and although Mr. Lala wanted to raise this question on a ground, different from that, actually and specifically considered by the Supreme Court in the above decision, it is clear that, so long as the said decision stands, this Court cannot go against it upon the footing that a particular aspect was not considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the said decision. We would, accordingly, overrule this submission of Mr. Lala in support of this Rule.
( 12 ) ON the question of relevant purpose (vide Section 4), also the purpose on which the instant requirement of the opposite parties is based, is certainly one, which would come within the residuary clause "other purposes",--be it considered in the light of ejusdem generis that is, as akin to a purpose, contemplated under Clause (b), namely, business purpose, or, under the wider interpretation of "other purposes", which of course, would be extreme or of an omnibus character. In this view, the petitioner's objection under this head, also, must fail and we would overrule it.
( 13
AI
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
