Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CHAKRABARTI, MALLICK
BHAGAT RAM BAIKA - Appellant
Versus
PRABIRENDRA MOHAN TAGORE - Respondent
Civil Rules 389 Of 1954
Decided On : JUNE 15, 1955
WEST BENGAL NON-AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT - SECTION 1(2) - DEFINITION OF 'CALCUTTA' - INTERPRETATION - EFFECT OF REPEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT OF CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL ACT - SECTION 608, CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL ACT, 1951 - CONSTRUCTION OF REFERENCES TO EARLIER ACT - APPLICABILITY TO WEST BENGAL NON-AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a tenant under the opposite party, applied for conversion of his land, originally let for agricultural purposes but now used as a building site, into a tenancy under the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949. The application was dismissed by the Collector and the Commissioner of the Presidency Division on the ground that the land was situated within the limits of Calcutta, which was excluded from the operation of the Act. The petitioner challenged the decision by filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
1. The appeal to the Commissioner should not have been dismissed summarily without giving the petitioner a hearing, as principles of natural justice demand a hearing before an appeal is dismissed, even in the absence of a statutory direction to that effect. 2. The definition of 'Calcutta' in Section 1(2)(a) of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, which referred to the definition in Section 3(11) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, must be construed as a reference to the definition in Section 5(11) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, which repealed and re-enacted the earlier Act. 3. Section 8 of the Indian General Clauses Act and Section 10 of the Bengal General Clauses Act apply to cases of repeal and re-enactment of an entire Act, not just specific provisions, and require that references to the repealed Act be construed as references to the re-enacted Act. 4. The intention to exclude future additions to the Calcutta area by means of changes in the definition or by repeal and re-enactment of the Act is not disclosed by Clause (b) of Section 1(2) of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949. 5. Section 608 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, provides a statutory direction to construe references to provisions in the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923 as references to corresponding provisions of the Act of 1951 in every enactment in force at the commencement of that Act, unless a different intention appears or it is impossible to do so.
Issues: 1. Whether the Commissioner's dismissal of the petitioner's appeal without a hearing violated principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the definition of 'Calcutta' in the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, should be construed as a reference to the definition in the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, or the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. 3. Whether Section 8 of the Indian General Clauses Act and Section 10 of the Bengal General Clauses Act apply to cases of repeal and re-enactment of an entire Act, and whether they require that references to the repealed Act be construed as references to the re-enacted Act. 4. Whether Clause (b) of Section 1(2) of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, evinces an intention to exclude future additions to the Calcutta area by means of changes in the definition or by repeal and re-enactment of the Act. 5. Whether Section 608 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, provides a statutory direction to construe references to provisions in the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923 as references to corresponding provisions of the Act of 1951 in every enactment in force at the commencement of that Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Principles of natural justice require that a party be given a hearing before an appeal is dismissed, even in the absence of a statutory direction to that effect. 2. Section 8 of the Indian General Clauses Act and Section 10 of the Bengal General Clauses Act apply to cases of repeal and re-enactment of an entire Act, not just specific provisions, and require that references to the repealed Act be construed as references to the re-enacted Act. 3. The intention to exclude future additions to the Calcutta area by means of changes in the definition or by repeal and re-enactment of the Act is not disclosed by Clause (b) of Section 1(2) of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949. 4. Section 608 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, provides a statutory direction to construe references to provisions in the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923 as references to corresponding provisions of the Act of 1951 in every enactment in force at the commencement of that Act, unless a different intention appears or it is impossible to do so.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed without any order for costs, as the petitioner's land fell within the area of the Tollygunge Municipality, which had become a part of the Calcutta area as defined in the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951.
( 1 ) THIS Rule raises a point which was decided by S. R. Das Gupta J. and myself in the case of -- 'khuda Bux v. Manager, Caledonian Press', but there has been a further argument before us which has enabled us to examine the matter afresh and look more closely into the relevant statutory provisions and authorities. I must, however, say at once that towards the end of the argument, we discovered a section in the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, which settles the controversy between the parties, but inasmuch as the point was argued at great length on general principles as well, we consider it right to record our opinion on that aspect of the matter also.
( 2 ) THE facts are these: The petitioner holds a plot of land appertaining to Khatian No. 168 of mouza Dhakuria, situated in the suburbs of Calcutta. He holds it as a tenant under the opposite party. His case is that the land was originally let for agricultural purposes, but is now being used as a building site. Accordingly, on 18-9-1953, he made an application under Section 72, West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, for the conversion of the land into a tenancy to winch the provisions of the Aqt would apply. That application was dismissed by the Collector on the ground that the land concerned was situated within the limits of Calcutta which was excluded from the operation of the Act. On appeal, the Collector's decision was upheld by the Commissioner of the Presidency Division. Thereafter, the petitioner moved this Court and obtained the present rule.
( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioner two points were urged before us. It was contended that his appeal to the Commissioner should not have been dismissed summarily without giving him a hearing and that by such dismissal, the principles of natural justice had been violated. It was contended in the second place that the decision of the authorities below was also wrong on the merits, inasmuch as, in view of the definition of 'calcutta' as contained in Section 1 (9) (a) of the Act, it could not be said that the petitioner's land was situated in the excepted area.
( 4 ) I may dispose of the shorter and the simpler ground first. It is true that the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, while providing for an appeal to the Commissioner of the Division from an order passed by the Collector under Section 72 (1), does not say in what manner the appeal should be dealt with or heard. It certainly does not say that the appeal shall not be dismissed without giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard. No rule also appears to have been framed with regard to the procedure to be followed in disposing of such appeals. Nevertheless, we feel bound to hold that the petitioner's appeal ought not to have been dismissed summarily without giving him a hearing, although the Act does not specifically require that a hearing shall be given. On the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it must be held that where an appeal has been provided for, natural justice demands that the appellant should be given a hearing before the appeal is dismissed, whether or not there be any statutory direction in that behalf. "but that a law of natural justice exists" observed their Lordships in the case --'sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal Kotah',"in the sense that a party must be heard in a Court of law. or at any rate, must be allowed to appear and defend himself, unless there is an express provision to the contrary, is, we think, beyond dispute". Mr. Sen Gupta who appears for the opposite party referred to what he called the Practice Manual under which the Board of Revenue or the Commissioner of the Division was entitled to dismiss summarily appeals preferred to them. The Practice Manual may authorise such procedure and it may be that such disposal of appeals could not be successfully impugned before the commencement of the present Constitution. Under the Constitution, however, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, a suitor who has
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
