Back
High Court Of Calcutta
A. K. GANGULY, S. P. TALUKDAR
ANANTALAL CHAKRABORTY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. L. R. T. 480 Of 2001
Decided On : 07/16/2003
WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT, 1955 - SECTION 5A, 14T, 14T(5) - BENAMI TRANSACTIONS - ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 14T(5) - REVENUE OFFICER COMPETENT TO HOLD SUCH ENQUIRY - BENAMI TRANSACTION (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1988 - SECTION 4 - PROHIBITION OF SUIT, CLAIM OR ACTION - DOES NOT INCLUDE ENQUIRY BY REVENUE OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14T(5) OF THE WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT, 1955.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the order of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal upholding the order of vesting passed by the appellate authority under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The petitioners' father, Haranarayan Chakraborty, had allegedly transferred 25.78 acres of land by a registered 'nirupanpatra' to his sons, daughters, grandsons, and deities in 1976. The revenue officer initiated proceedings under Section 14t(5) of the Act and held that the transfer was not bona fide, that the character of 'debottar' was private, and that 9.6 acres of land had vested in the State. The petitioners challenged this order in a writ petition, which was quashed by the High Court. Subsequently, a fresh proceeding was initiated by the revenue officer, and an order was passed that 10.04 acres of land had vested in the State. The appellate authority affirmed this order, and the petitioners filed another writ petition, which was transferred to the tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The tribunal held that the revenue officer and the appellate authority had concurrently found that the transfers were made with the object of defeating the anticipated ceiling limit under the Act and that the 'debottar' was a private 'debottar' which was clubbed with the land in terms of the provisions of Section 14m(5) of the Act. The tribunal also held that since Haranarayan Chakraborty died on 22.03.1971, which is after the date of vesting, his ceiling was determined by treating the entire land of 27.34 acres on 15.02.1971, and since the family of Haranarayan Chakraborty was only two members family, he was entitled to retain 17.30 acres of land and 10.04 acres of land being in excess of the ceiling limit vested in the State.
Issues: 1. Whether the revenue officer had jurisdiction to question a transfer made in 1966 under Section 5a of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act or under Chapter-IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. 2. Whether the question of Benami can be gone into in any proceeding under Section 14t(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, 1956, 1955. 3. Whether the respondent authorities acted beyond their jurisdiction in holding the transaction as Benami and it is only the person who made the transfer is competent to say if it was Benami or not. 4. Whether Respondent Authorities cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Chapter-lib of the West Bengal Land Reforms act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The revenue officer had jurisdiction to question the transfer made in 1966 under Section 5a of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act or under Chapter-IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, as the transfer was made with the object of defeating the anticipated ceiling limit under the Act. 2. The question of Benami can be gone into in any proceeding under Section 14t(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, 1956, 1955, as the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 does not prohibit an enquiry by a Revenue officer which is contemplated under sub-section (5) of Section 14t of the said Act. 3. The respondent authorities did not act beyond their jurisdiction in holding the transaction as Benami, as the Revenue officer is competent to hold such an enquiry under Section 14t(5) of the said Act. 4. The Respondent Authorities did not usurp the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Chapter-lib of the West Bengal Land Reforms act, as there was no decree of the Civil Court covering the dispute.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the judgment of the learned Tribunal was affirmed.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20. 04. 2001 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Tribunal') in T. A. No. 633 of 2000 (LRTT ). By the said order, writ petition numbered as 4095 (W) of 1999, which was transferred to the said tribunal, was decided. The said writ petition No. 4095 (W) of 1999 was filed by one Sri Anantalal Chakraborty and Sri Srimantalal Chakraborty, both sons of late Haranarayan chakraborty, challenging therein the order of vesting passed by the appellate authority dated 24. 11. 1998 under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act ).
( 2 ) THE relevant facts of this case are that Haranarayan Chakraborty allegedly transferred 25. 78 acres of land by a registered 'nirupanpatra' dated 31. 12. 1976 to his sons, daughters and also to his grandsons many of whom at that time were minors and also to his deities.
( 3 ) SEVERAL proceedings were initiated in respect of such transfer, but, the proceedings with which we are concerned is the proceeding by the revenue Officer, Keshiayari, in Case No. 1 of 1992 and Case No. 2 of 1992 under Section 14t (5) of the said Act. In the said proceeding, the revenue Officer held that the said transfer was not bona fide and further held that the character of "debottar" is private and also held that 9. 6 acres of land consequently had vested.
( 4 ) CHALLENGING the order of the Revenue Officer, a writ application was filed being numbered as Civil Order No. 14535 (W) of 1992 and by an order dated 27. 08. 1992, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to quash the proceedings. Subsequently, in the year 1995, a fresh proceeding as initiated by the Revenue Officer empowered under Sections 14t (5), 14t (6), 14t (8)and 14t (9) of the said Act. An order was passed on that proceeding to the effect that 10. 04 acres of Land shown in Schedule 'b' have been vested in the State and the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Keshiayari, was directed to take the possession of the said vested land. The Revenue Officer also held that the character of the 'debottar' property created by the said haranarayan Chakraborty, are private 'debottar'. Thereafter, on an appeal against the said order, the appellate authority also affirmed the order passed by the aforesaid Revenue Officer. Hence, another writ petition being W. P. No, 4095 (W) of 1999 was filed. That writ petition was transferred to the tribunal and on that, the tribunal passed the impugned order.
( 5 ) THE tribunal, in its order under challenge, noted the points on which the order of the appellate authority was challenged. Those points are noted below :"i. That the Revenue Officer acted illegally and beyond jurisdiction in making enquiry in respect of transfers made in favour of sons and grandsons and deities by the raiyat by a registered instrument in the year 1966 when Chapter-IIB of West Bengal Land reforms Act was not in force. II. That the Revenue Officer has had no jurisdiction to question a transfer made in 1966 either under Section 5a of the West Bengal estates Acquisition Act or under Chapter-IIB of the West Bengal Land reforms Act and as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed. III. That the respondents erred in law in holding that the transfer is a benami transfer inasmuch as Section 14t (5) as amended by the amendment Act, 1981 having been declared ultra vires by the judgment reported in 1991 (1) CHN 496, the question of Benami cannot be gone into in any proceeding under Section 14t (3) of the west Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, 1956, 1955. IV. That after the coming into force of the Benami Transaction act, the respondent authorities acted beyond their jurisdiction in holding the transaction as Benami and it is only the person who made the transfer is competent to say if it was Benami or not. V. That Respondent Authorities cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Ch
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
