Back
1957 Supreme(Cal) 155
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sinha
ANANTA KUMAR DUTTA - Appellant
Versus
LAND REVENUE OFFICER II ESTATES ACQUISITION BRANCH, NADIA - Respondent
Civil Revision 1569 Of 1956
Decided On : AUGUST 05, 1957
J.Majumdar, NAGENDRA MOHAN SHAH, SOMENDRA C.BOSE
The interests of raiyats and under-raiyats can be acquired by the State under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, in the same manner as the interests of true intermediaries.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL ESTATES ACQUISITION ACT, 1953 - SECTIONS 4, 5, 49, 50, 51, 52 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 31-A - RAIYAT'S INTEREST - VESTING IN STATE - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - FICTIONAL DEEMING - CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY - BENAMI TRANSACTIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Ananta Kumar Dutta, claimed to be a raiyati Sthitiban tenant under the intermediary R. Pal Choudhury, whose estate had vested in the State under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The petitioner had obtained a lease from R. Pal Choudhury to remove sand from the bed and foreshore of the river Jalangi. The respondents, the State of West Bengal and its officers, contended that the petitioner's interest had also vested in the State under the Act and that he had no right to remove sand without obtaining permission and settlement from the State.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's interest had vested in the State under the Act and that he had no right to remove sand without obtaining permission and settlement from the State. The court also held that Section 52 of the Act, which applied the provisions of Chapters II, III, V, and VII of the Act to raiyats and under-raiyats as if they were intermediaries, was not ultra vires the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's interest as a raiyati Sthitiban tenant had vested in the State under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. 2. Whether Section 52 of the Act, which applied the provisions of Chapters II, III, V, and VII of the Act to raiyats and under-raiyats as if they were intermediaries, was ultra vires the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 52 of the Act to mean that the interests of raiyats and under-raiyats were to be treated as if they were intermediaries, and that the provisions of Chapters II, III, V, and VII of the Act would apply to them accordingly. 2. The court held that Section 52 was not ultra vires the Constitution because Article 31-A(2)(b) of the Constitution, as amended by the Fourth Amendment, enabled the acquisition of the entire interest of raiyats and under-raiyats in the same manner as a true intermediary.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application and discharged the rule nisi.
( 1 ) THE facts in this case are briefly-as follows: Temporary Settled Touzi Nos. 917 to 920 and 3709 of the Nadia Collectorate were formed out of resumed lands which had formed the bed of the river Jalangi at the time of the Permanent Settlement, and were settled upon the riparian owners, the Pal Chouduris. According to the Nadia Collectorate 'd' Register, one Sri B. Pal Choudhury is shown as one of the proprietors of the temporary settled private estates bearing Touzi Nos. 917 and 920 of the Nadia Collectorate. According to the Revisional Settlement records of 1943, he is a part proprietor of the T. S. P. estate bearing Touzi No. 3709 of the Nadia Collectorate. On the 26th September 1954, the said R. Pal Choudhury let out the sub-soil in these touzis (917 to 920 and 3709), in rayati Sthitiban right to (1) Shibapada Bagchi and (2) Shaik Mafassil Ali, both of whom were his employees. These two persons transferred their interest by a registered deed dated 20th December 1954, to the petitioner Ananta Kumar Dutta. It is alleged by the respondents that this Ananta Kumar Dutta is also an employee of Sri Pal Choudhury and that all these transactions are benami transactions, entered into in order to defeat the provision of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the 'act'), This of course is denied by the petitioner. According to the respondents, the touzis, including the interest of the petitioner, vested in Government by virtue of the said Act and the notifications Published under it (under Sections 4 and 49 ). Sometime in April 1955, it was discovered by the respondents that one Smarajit Pal Choudhury of Krishnagar was removing sand from the bed and foreshore of the river Jalangi without permission or without taking any settlement from the Government. On or about the 21st February, 1956, show cause notices were served upon the petitioner and the said Smarajit Pal Choudhury, stating that the bed of the river Jalangi had vested in Government under the Act, free from incumbrances, and yet it appeared that the petitioner had created a lease in favour of Smarajit Pal Choudhury who was removing sand therefrom, which he had no right to do. They were asked to show cause why action should not be taken against them for violating the provisions of the Act. Both the petitioner and Smarajit Pal Choudhury showed cause. It appeared that by an unregistered amalnama dated 16th April 1955, the petitioner had granted a lease to Smarajit Pal Choudhury for removal of sand from the area for 1362 B. S. , for a consideration of Rs. 500 only. The petitioner claimed that he was a raiyat under the intermediary R. Pal Choudhury whose estate had vested in the State, but that his own interest as a raiyatl Sthitiban tenant had not vested in the State, and he was perfectly entitled to sell sand to Smarajit Pal Choudhury. The matter was thereupon numbered as Misc. Case No. 1083 of 1955-56 and the Land Revenue Officer proceeded to make enquiries and take legal opinion. He was advised that the proprietor of a T. S. P. Estate could not create a non-agricultural tenancy in the foreshore of a river, the control and management of which vested in Government. He therefore decided on 12th March 1956 that the applicants (meaning the petitioner and Smarajit Pal Choudhury) could not remove sand without obtaining permission and settlement from the State. Smarajit Pal Choudhury thereupon paid Rs. 500/- to Government and on 21st March 1956 obtained permission to remove sand for 1362 B. S.
( 2 ) THIS rule was issued on 6th June 1956, calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 3 to cancel and/or set aside and/or forbear from giving effect to the orders dated 12th March, 1956 and 21st March, 1956 (mentioned above) and for other reliefs.
( 3 ) THE short point for determination in this case is as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of this
