Back
2003 Supreme(Cal) 340
High Court Of Calcutta
ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, JYOTESH BANERJEE
RATNAGIRI ENGINEERING PVT.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. L. R. T. 279 Of 2002
Decided On : 07/11/2003
A.C.MOITRA, ANIRUDDHA BAGCHI, B.P.SARKAR, BISWAJIT DAS, DEBASIS KUNDU, KRISHNA NANDA MUKHARJI, M.MISHRA, RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, SANJAY BOSE, Vishal Jain
The State Government's power to resume land under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, and Section 14-Z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, is limited to cases where the land is required by the mill, factory, or workshop and the land is held beyond the prescribed ceiling. The State Government must consider whether the land was initially allowed to be retained by the company within the ceiling or beyond the prescribed ceiling, and must take into account the extent of the prescribed ceiling as contained in various provisions of the relevant Acts.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - WEST BENGAL ESTATES ACQUISITION ACT, 1953 - SECTION 6(3) - WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT, 1955 - SECTION 14-Z - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - RESUMPTION OF LAND - VALIDITY - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - PRESCRIBED CEILING - CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL LANDHOLDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from a land acquisition proceeding initiated by the State Government under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, and Section 14-Z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The petitioner, a company that purchased land from a liquidator in a court sale, challenged the resumption of 24.25 acres of land by the State Government on the ground that the land was not required by the company. The petitioner contended that the State Government could not resume the land unless it was initially allowed to be retained by the company within the prescribed ceiling, taking into account the total area of lands held by each member of the company on the relevant date.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the State Government's power to resume land under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, and Section 14-Z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, was limited to cases where the land was required by the mill, factory, or workshop and the land was held beyond the prescribed ceiling. The court found that the State Government had not considered whether the land was initially allowed to be retained by the company within the ceiling or beyond the prescribed ceiling, and that the State Government had not taken into account the extent of the prescribed ceiling as contained in various provisions of the relevant Acts.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government could resume land under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, and Section 14-Z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, without considering whether the land was initially allowed to be retained by the company within the prescribed ceiling. 2. Whether the State Government had to take into account the extent of the prescribed ceiling as contained in various provisions of the relevant Acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State Government's power to resume land under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, and Section 14-Z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, was limited to cases where the land was required by the mill, factory, or workshop and the land was held beyond the prescribed ceiling. The court found that the State Government had not considered whether the land was initially allowed to be retained by the company within the ceiling or beyond the prescribed ceiling, and that the State Government had not taken into account the extent of the prescribed ceiling as contained in various provisions of the relevant Acts. The court held that the State Government's order resuming the land was therefore invalid.
Final Decision: The court quashed the State Government's order resuming the land and directed the State Government to take appropriate action in accordance with law, after coming to necessary findings as regards facts, including the fact that the land had been allowed to be retained beyond the prescribed ceiling.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition was heard along with WPLRT no. 209 of 2002 as in both writ petitions the self-same judgment of the west Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal was under challenge.
( 2 ) THE respondent No. 6 is a school established by the members of the Jewish community for imparting education to their children. By an indenture dated March 27, 1912 a trust was created by the then members of the managing committee of the school appointing three members of the said community as trustees or the trust. The trust subsequently by a deed of trust dated June 16,1916 appointed the Official Trustee of West Bengal as the trustee of the said trust for managing its affairs.
( 3 ) BY a registered indenture dated November 17, 1938 the trust purchased 76 Bighas 17 Cottahs of land at Mousa Ariadaha, Kamarhati which was popularly known as Ezra Arakie Park (hereinafter referred to as park ).
( 4 ) ON June 2, 1950, the Official Trustee demined the rear portion of the PARK comprising of an area of 40 Bighas by a deed of lease in favour of one B. N. Singh and Sons for 51 years having an option clause for removal of lease for a further period of 51 years.
( 5 ) THE said B. N. Singh and Sons by an indenture dated March 14, 1951 assigned their unexpired term or leasehold interest in favour of Beni engineering Works Ltd. and the same was confirmed by the Official Trustee. The said Beni Engineering Works Ltd. subsequently came to be known as beni Ltd.
( 6 ) THE balance front portion of the PARK having an area of 36 Bighas 17 Cottahs of land was let out to Beni Ltd. by the Official Trustee on a monthly tenancy with effect from June 1, 1950 on the terms and conditions contained in letter dated May 29, 1950 and for a period of one year with option to continue for a further period of one year or to terminate it earlier upon serving one month's notice.
( 7 ) BENI Ltd: constructed its factory premises in the said PARK and by a letter dated November 25, 1954 created a licence in favour of one ramanlal Madanlal in respect of 36th Bighas 17 Cottahs in the PARK.
( 8 ) OFFICIAL Trustee filed Title Suit No. 71 of 1960 for eviction of ramanlal Madanlal as well as Beni Ltd, from the suit premises covering 36 Bighas 17 Cottahs on the ground of subletting. The suit was dismissed on contest on February 28, 1972 on the ground the notice was defective. The Official Trustee filed Title Appeal No. 429 of 1972 which was allowed and the cross-appeal filed by Beni Ltd. was rejected. The Title Suit itself was decreed thereby. Ramanlal Madanlal filed a Second Appeal before this Court which was admitted and the operation of the impugned decree was stayed and the said appeal remain pending.
( 9 ) ON November 17,1992 Beni Ltd. went into liquidation in a winding up proceeding and the Official Liquidator took over possession of the assets. The Official Liquidator thereafter sold the property in a sale held in open court wherein offer of the petitioner No. 1 company for Rs. 1. 57 crores was accepted in open bid. The said sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner has already paid the entire consideration.
( 10 ) BEFORE requisite conveyance could be executed following the said sale, the school and its authorities filed an application being C. A. No. 62 of 1999 praying, inter-alia, for a direction on the Official Liquidator to handover the possession of the said premises to the Official Trustee and for cancellation of the sale. During pendency of the said proceeding, the petitioner company received a notice dated April 30, 1999 issued by the state of West Bengal inviting objection in writing against the proposed decision of the State Government to resume an area of 24. 25 acres of land being surplus to the requirement of the company, namely, Beni Ltd. (in liquidation ). The petitioner No. 1 was also invited to appear in bearing on 11th June, 1999.
( 11 ) BY letterdated 12th June, 1999, petitioner informed the concerned au
