Back
1999 Supreme(Cal) 81
High Court Of Calcutta
S. B. SINHA
SANAT KUMAR MAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. 12440 Of 1979
Decided On : 03/04/1999
B.GAYEN, DIPANKAR DUTTA, GURU DAS MITRA, K.C.SAHOO, KANAN KUMAR GHOSH, MRINAL KANTI ROY, SAMIR KUMAR BANERJI, SANJIB KUMAR MAL
The interpretation and application of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, particularly Sections 5A and 6(1)(f), in determining the bona fide nature of land transfers and the classification of lands as agricultural or non-agricultural for the purpose of computing the ceiling area.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL ESTATES ACQUISITION ACT - SECTION 5A, 6(1)(F) - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - LAND REFORMS - AGRICULTURAL LANDS - NON-AGRICULTURAL LANDS - ORCHARD - BAMBOO GROVE - TRANSFER OF LAND - BONA FIDE TRANSFER - ONUS OF PROOF - FACTUAL FINDINGS BY TRIBUNAL - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, heirs and legal representatives of an ex-intermediary, challenged the orders passed by the authorities under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, holding that the ex-intermediary possessed excess agricultural lands beyond the ceiling limit prescribed under the Act. The petitioners contended that certain lands, including bamboo gardens and orchards, were wrongly classified as agricultural lands, and that a transfer of land made by the ex-intermediary to his sons was a bona fide transfer, not made with the intention of increasing the amount of land retained or compensation payable under the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the transfer of land made by the ex-intermediary to his sons was not a bona fide transfer, as it was presumed to be not bona fide under Section 5A(7) of the Act, being made between relatives during a specified period. However, the court found that the authorities erred in classifying certain lands, including bamboo gardens and orchards, as agricultural lands, and that these lands should have been excluded from computing the ceiling area in view of Section 6(1)(f) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the transfer of land made by the ex-intermediary to his sons was a bona fide transfer under Section 5A(7) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act? 2. Whether certain lands, including bamboo gardens and orchards, were correctly classified as agricultural lands under the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the transfer of land made by the ex-intermediary to his sons was not a bona fide transfer, as it was presumed to be not bona fide under Section 5A(7) of the Act, being made between relatives during a specified period. The onus of proof was on the petitioners to prove that the transfer was bona fide, but they failed to discharge this burden. 2. The court interpreted Section 6(1)(f) of the Act and held that orchards and tank fisheries should have been excluded from computing the ceiling area. The court also held that bamboo groves, while not being agricultural lands, could not be considered as orchards either.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders to the extent that they held that the ex-intermediary possessed excess agricultural lands, and directed that the lands classified as bamboo gardens and orchards be excluded from computing the ceiling area.
( 1 ) THE petitioners in this writ application, inter alia, have prayed for the following reliefs:-" (A)A Writ of Certiorari commanding the respondents Nos. 1 to 7 to forthwith produce, certify and/or cause production of the records of the case No. 4 of 1962 of District Hooghly started against Munindra Nath Mal, father of the petitioners, under section 5a of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and Estates Acquisition Appeals Nos. 9 and 10 of 1974 of the court of the Special Judge under section 5a (6) of the said Act, being the District Judge, Hooghly and the papers and documents relating to the purported order of vesting passed by the Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 so that the same may be perused and set aside by this Hon'ble Court. (b)A Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondents Nos. 1 to 7, their officers, servants and agents to cancel, revoke and/or rescind the orders impugned in the present petition and also the purported order of vesting passed by the Revenue Officer and not to give any effect or further effect to the said impugned orders and to act in accordance with law. "
( 2 ) THE case has a chequered history. One Munindra Nath Mal was an ex-intermediary. The petitioners are heirs and legal representatives of the said Munindra Nath Mal. The said ex-intermediaries allegedly owned and possessed the following lands:-" (a)Agricultural 13. 22 acres (b)Non-Agricultural 16. 91 acres (i)Tank and Doba 4. 84 acres (ii)Danga 8. 86 ,, (iii)Bamboo 3. 21 ,, (c)home Stead 1. 07 acres (d) orchard 13. 79 acres. "
( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY by reason of a registered deed of settlement dated 25. 11. 1953 the said ex-intermediary made the following settlements in favour of his sons:-" (a) sushil Kumar (i)Agricultural. 49 acres (ii)Non-Agricultural 1. 65 acres (a)Tank. 34 (b) Danga 1. 01 (c)Bamboo. 30 (iii)Homestead. 16 acres. (iv)Orchard. 18 acres. 2. 48 acres. (b)sanat Kumar Mal. (i)Agricultural 1. 20 acres. (ii)Non-Agricultural 2. 45 acres. (a)Tank and Doba. 43 (b)Danga 2. 02 (iii)Orchard 1. 45 Acres. 5. 10 acres. (c)saroj Kumar Mal. (i)Agricultural. 76 acres. (ii)Non-Agricultural. 96 acres. (a)Tank and Doba. 47 (b)Danga. 44 (c)Bamboo. 05 (iii)Home Stead. 15 acres (iv)Orchard. 91 acres 2. 78 acres (d)Santosh Kumar Mal. (i)Agricultural 2. 17 acres. (ii)Non-Agricultural 2. 14 acres. (a)Tank and Doba. 47 (b)Danga. 63 (c)Bamboo 1. 04 (iii)Homestead. 15 acres. (iv)Orchard. 84 acres. 5. 30 acres. (e)sunil Kumar Mal. (i)Agricultural 1. 25 acres. (ii) Non-Agricultural 1. 29 acres. (a)Tank and Doba. 36 (b)Danga. 47 (c)Bamboo. 46 (iii) Homestead. 15 acres. (iv)Orchard. 42 acres. 3. 11 acres.
( 4 ) THE petitioners further alleged that Sushil Kumar Mal, Saroj Kumar Mal and Santosh Kumar Mal had independently acquired the lands of the following descriptions :-" (a)Sushil Kumar Mal. (i)Agricultural. 68 acres. (ii)Non-Agricultural. 41 acres. (a)Tank and Doba. 07 (b)Danga. 34 (iii)Orchard. 09 acres. 1. 18 acres. (b) Saroj Kumar Mal. (i)Non-Agricultural. 47 acres. (a)Danga. 32 (b)Bamboo. 15. 47 acres. (c)Santosh Kumar Mal. (i)Agricultural. 10 acres. (ii)Non-Agricultural. 16 acres. (a)Danga. 16. 26 acres"
( 5 ) AFTER coming into force of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act the said ex-intermediary filed a return in Form-B on 11. 10. 1955. However, a big Raiyat case being Case No. 4 of 1962 was initiated against him by the Assistant Settlement Officer.
( 6 ) BY a judgment and order dated 14. 2. 1963 the Assistant Settlement Officer held that the said ex-intermediary held lands in excess of the ceiling limit where against an appeal was preferred which was marked as E. A. No. 1 of 1963. The appellate authority being the District Judge, Hooghly, allowed the said appeal and remitted the matter back to the Assistant Settlement Officer for re-hearing by an order dated 24. 9. 63. The Assistant Settlement Officer by an order dated 19. 11. 63 again held that the said ex-intermediary possessed excess lands where against an appeal was preferred which was
