Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. N. Bagchi
BAR, DAS, DEY AND CO. - Appellant
Versus
SRI SRI ISHWAR TARAKESHWAR SIB THAKUR JIU, SHEBAIT MOHANT SRIMAT DANDISWAMI HRISHIKESH, ASHRAM - Respondent
A. F. A. D. 718 Of 1962
Decided On : MARCH 14, 1969
ESTATES ACQUISITION ACT - MINES AND MINERALS - RIGHT OF INTERMEDIARIES DIRECTLY WORKING MINES - LEASE BY STATE GOVERNMENT - TERMS AND CONDITIONS - SETTLEMENT KHATIAN - DEFINITION OF "MINE" AND "MINERAL" - DIRECTLY WORKED BY INTERMEDIARY - EXCLUSIVE OCCUPATION OF MINE - ESTOPPEL.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a deity represented by its shebait, filed a suit for recovery of land and arrears of license fees from the defendants, alleging that the defendants had executed an agreement to take out sand from the plaintiff's land for a certain period, and that they had not vacated the land after the expiry of the agreement. The defendants resisted the suit, claiming that they were tenants under the plaintiff, and that they had acquired a non-ejectable right in the land. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff's intermediary interest in the land had vested in the State of West Bengal, and that the plaintiff had no right to sue the defendants. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge, who decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to retain possession of the land under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiff had no right to institute the suit as framed, and that the learned District Judge erred both in fact and in law in granting a decree to the plaintiff-respondent. The Court found that the plaintiff had not been directly working the mine at the date of vesting of his intermediary interest, and that the defendants had been in exclusive occupation of the mine by extracting sand therefrom from 1347 B. S. till date. Therefore, the Court held that Section 28 of Chapter IV of the Estates Acquisition Act would stand in the way of the plaintiff respondent's getting the mine as a lessee directly holding it under the State of West Bengal.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had the right to institute the suit as framed? 2. Whether the learned District Judge erred in granting a decree to the plaintiff-respondent? 3. Whether the plaintiff had been directly working the mine at the date of vesting of his intermediary interest? 4. Whether the defendants had been in exclusive occupation of the mine by extracting sand therefrom from 1347 B. S. till date?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The plaintiff had no right to institute the suit as framed because the mine in dispute had vested in the State of West Bengal under Section 28 of Chapter IV of the Estates Acquisition Act, and the plaintiff had not been directly working the mine at the date of vesting of his intermediary interest. 2. The learned District Judge erred in granting a decree to the plaintiff-respondent because he failed to consider the provisions of Section 28 of Chapter IV of the Estates Acquisition Act, and he also erred in interpreting the documents Exts. 1 and A as creating a lease in favor of the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff had not been directly working the mine at the date of vesting of his intermediary interest because the defendants had been in exclusive occupation of the mine by extracting sand therefrom from 1347 B. S. till date. 4. The defendants had been in exclusive occupation of the mine by extracting sand therefrom from 1347 B. S. till date, as evidenced by the settlement khatian (Ext. F) and the oral agreement under which they had been brought into occupation of the mine.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge were set aside. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed on contest.
( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal is at the instance of the defendants in Title Suit No. 37 of 1960 of the Court of the Second Munsif, Chandernagore. The plaintiff proceeded with the following case. The plaintiff is Sri Sri Iswar Tarakeswar Sib Thakur Jiu respectively (sic represented?) by She-bait Mohant Srimat Dandiswami Hrishikesh Asram. The defendants are Bar, Das, Dey and Co. proprietors of the same being GOUR Chandra Bar, Batakrishna Dey and Bijay Basanta Das. The defendants are alleged to have executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff to take out sand up to 1365 B. S. from plot Nos. 689, 797, 530, 563/1109 comprising 8. 86 acres equal to 27 bighas of land situate in Mouza Baligari recorded in Khatian Nos. 27, 23 and 24. The right to take the sand from the aforesaid land under the agreement was to be effective up to 1365 B. S. on payment of the plaintiff Rs. 66 per annum said to be the license fees. The defendants shall have no other concern with the land which shall always remain the property of the plaintiff. So soon as the plaintiff would claim any right the defendants would immediately withdraw themselves from the act of taking sands after 1365 B. S. The license fees for the period 1362 to 1365 B. S. remained unpaid at Rs. 66 per annum amounting in total to Rs. 330. The plaintiff served a notice on the defendants withdrawing the said defendant's license by revoking the license, and the license expired with the expiry of the notice. The defendants did not vacate the land. Hence the suit for recovery of the land and for arrears of license fees.
( 2 ) THE defendants resisted the suit by a written statement. The defendants asserted that in view of the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act the plaintiffs interest as intermediary in the land had vested in the State of West Bengal wherefor the plaintiff lost any right to sue against the defendants. The defendants are tenants in respect of the land in dispute under the State of West Bengal that has already realised rent in respect of the disputed land from the defendants. It is further contended in the written statement that the interest of the defendants in the land in dispute has been correctly recorded in the finally published revisional record of rights. From 1347 Baisakh, the defendants came into occupation of the disputed land upon an oral settlement as tenants under the plaintiff at an annual rental of Rs. 54. On 10-7-41, there was confirmatory lease in respect of the defendants' tenancy in the land in dispute. Since Baisakh 1347 B. S. , the defendants have been in occupation of the disputed land as tea-ants, and as such, have acquired a non-ejectable right therein. It is further asserted in the written statement that upon 1347 B. S. , the defendants possessed the disputed land as tenants under the plaintiff, and that from 1362 B. S. the defendants had been possessing the disputed land as tenants under the State of West Bengal, The defendants contended in the written statement that when the plaintiff threatened to enhance the rent of the tenancy and coerced the defendants to execute a document said to be an agreement, the defendants did execute in 1350 B. S. one agreement under undue influence and coercion. The defendants disputed the sufficiency of the notice deter' mining the alleged licence in respect of the land in dispute.
( 3 ) SIX issues were framed by the learned Munsif upon the pleadings. The learned Munsif in his judgment found that the intermediary interest of the plaintiff in the land in suit vested in the State of West Bengal from 1st Baisakh 1302 B. S. , and that the plaintiff was not entitled to retain possession of the disputed land under the provisions of Section 6 (1) Clauses (h) and (i) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. The learned Munsif found that in the disputed land the defendants have acquired a tenancy right. The learned Munsif found also that the plaintiff bad no right, title and interest in the dis
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
