High Court Of Calcutta
A. K. GANGULY, S. P. TALUKDAR
BASANA ROY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. L. R. T. 387 Of 2003
Decided On : 09/26/2003
LAND REFORMS - WEST BENGAL ESTATES ACQUISITION ACT, 1953 - SECTION 44(2A) - WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT, 1955 - SECTION 51A(4) - CORRECTION OF RECORD OF RIGHTS - JURISDICTION OF LAND REFORMS AND TENANCY TRIBUNAL - INTERPRETATION OF KABULIATS - EXTENT OF RIGHTS GRANTED - DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEASE AND LICENSE - APPLICABILITY OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 107.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who purchased land in 1984, claimed ownership based on a Kabuliat executed in 1954, granting the original raiyat's right to rear and catch fish in a tank for 11 years. The petitioner's name was recorded in the L. R. Record of Right, but the heirs of the original raiyat challenged this, claiming that the Kabuliat was a mere license and that the petitioner had no right to the tank or the sub-soil rights. The Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal directed correction of the erroneous Records of Rights under section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, and correction of the L. R. Record under section 51a(4) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Kabuliat granted only a right to rear and catch fish, which constituted a license and not a lease, and that the petitioner had no transferable right in the land. The court also held that the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal had jurisdiction to correct the Records of Rights under section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, and that the correction of the L. R. Record under section 51a(4) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, was a consequential action.
Issues: 1. Whether the Kabuliat executed in 1954 granted a lease or a license? 2. Whether the petitioner had any transferable right in the land? 3. Whether the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal had jurisdiction to correct the Records of Rights under section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the Kabuliat as granting only a right to rear and catch fish, which constituted a license and not a lease, based on the following factors: - The Kabuliat was an unilateral document and did not comply with the requirements of a lease under section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. - The Kabuliat did not grant any sub-soil rights or interest in the tank. 2. The court held that the petitioner had no transferable right in the land since the Kabuliat did not grant any such right. 3. The court held that the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal had jurisdiction to correct the Records of Rights under section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, as the period for correction of Record of Right had been extended to 50 years.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned order of the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. The court held that the petitioner had no right to the tank or the sub-soil rights, and that the Tribunal was justified in directing the correction of the Records of Rights.
( 1 ) THE present writ application under section 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd May, 2003 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal', in O. A. No. 2908 of 2002.
( 2 ) GRIEVANCES of the writ petitioner may briefly be stated as follows: the petitioner purchased land in 1984 situated in Mouza-Purba Khamar Simulia, P. S. Hanskhali in the District-Nadia being R. S. Khatian Nos. 1421, R. S. Dag Nos. 650, 651, 652, 655 comprising of an area of 1. 77 acres out of 2. 86 acres from the recorded owners Sri Ashim Kumar Sarkar and others, being the heirs of the recorded owner Nihar Ranjan Sarkar, through a Registered Sale Kobala. After such purchase, the petitioner got possession of the land and started paying rent to the Government and the Government accepted the same. Petitioner applied for correction of Records of Rights and the concerned authority duly corrected the Record of Right. Bhagaban Chandra Biswas and Suprakash Biswas, who were owners of the plot in question and also other properties in Mouza-Simulia were big raiyat. Being intermediary, their right, title and interest were vested to the State and they settled the Tank and/or Land in question in favour of one Nihar Ranjan Sarkar on 28. 7. 1954. On the basis of the said documents, Nihar Ranjan Sarkar recorded his name in the R. S. Record of Right. After the death of said Nihar Ranjan Sarkar his heirs i. e. , the vendors of the petitioner duly applied for correction of Records of Rights in respect of the Tank/land in question and the concerned authority duly recorded the names of the heirs of the deceased Nihar Ranjan Sarkar in the L. R. Records of Rights. Respondents Nos. 6 to 8 never prayed for initiation of 44 (2a) proceeding for correction of Record of Right but they prayed for the same after 37 years from the date of correction of Record of Right in the name of Nihar Ranjan Sarkar on the ground that settlement of pond in question with Nihar Ranjan Sarkar had expired in 1971. The settlement authority initiated the proceeding for correction in 1998 i. e. , long after 25 years of the final publication of the Record of Right. The petitioner is enjoying and possessing the Land/tank in question since the date of her purchase and is still in possession. The respondent Nos. 6 to 8 who are the heirs of Bhagaban Chandra Biswas made an application on 16. 1. 1998 before the BLLRO, Hanskhali with a prayer for correction of Record of Right. The said respondent Nos. 6 to 8 moved a writ application before the Hon'ble High Court being W. P. No. 5014 (W) of 1998 but the petitioner was not made a party in that matter. The Hon'ble Justice N. K. Mitra, as His Lordship then was, by order dated 16. 7. 98 directed the concerned authority to consider the writ application as a representation and dispose of the same. As per the said direction the BLLRO disposed of the representation and rejected the same on the ground that any proceeding under section 44 (2a) of the WBEA Act was impossible after 35 years from the date of final publication. It was also held that the person whose name was recorded became direct tenant under the State, BLLRO also held that the at K. B. Stage modified Khatian was prepared deleting Ijara Dakhal. Against the order of BLLRO, respondent Nos. 6 to 8 moved another writ application being W. P. No. 6614 (W) of 1999 and the same was admitted on 21. 4. 1999. During pendency of the said writ petition, they preferred an appeal being L. R. Appeal No. 22 of 1999. The Appellate Authority disposed of the same by order passed on 26. 12. 2000 and while setting aside the order passed by BLLRO, direction was given for correction of Record of Right in the names of respondent Nos. 6 to 8. The petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal being O. A. No. 571 of 2001 and the Tribunal by order dated 31. 7. 2001 directed that BLLRO should initiate a fresh pr
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.