Back
2005 Supreme(Cal) 780
High Court Of Calcutta
Soumitra Sen
SHREYASHI TRADECOM PVT.LTD - Appellant
Versus
CHAIRMAN, BARANAGAR MUNICIPALITY - Respondent
WP 196 Of 2005
Decided On : 12/22/2005
JISHU SAHA, SUKIRAN BISWAS
The provisions of Section 14z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, which was introduced with retrospective effect from 1969, have an overriding effect over the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. As a result, the provisions of Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act, insofar as mill land is concerned, have no application.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT, 1955 - WEST BENGAL ESTATE ACQUISITION ACT, 1953 - URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 - COMPANIES ACT, 1956 - SALE OF COMPANY'S ASSETS - LAND WITHIN CEILING LIMIT - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 6(3) OF THE WEST BENGAL ESTATE ACQUISITION ACT, 1953 - EFFECT OF SECTION 14Z OF THE WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT, 1955 - APPROVAL OF BUILDING PLANS - JURISDICTION OF THE WEST BENGAL LAND AND LAND REFORMS TENANCY TRIBUNAL.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased the assets and properties of a company in liquidation, including land, and sought approval for plotting plans from the respondent-Municipality. The Municipality refused approval, citing that the land was subject to Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, and required a 'no objection' from the Land Reforms Department. The petitioner challenged the Municipality's action, arguing that the land was within the ceiling limit prescribed by the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and thus not subject to the 1953 Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of Section 14z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, which was introduced with retrospective effect from 1969, have an overriding effect over the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. As a result, the provisions of Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act, insofar as mill land is concerned, have no application. Any order issued or proceeding initiated under Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act is de hors the Act and cannot be adjudicated by the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Tenancy Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, have an overriding effect over the provisions of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953? 2. Whether the land in question is subject to the provisions of Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953? 3. Whether the respondent-Municipality was justified in refusing approval for the petitioner's plotting plans without obtaining a 'no objection' from the Land Reforms Department?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Chapter-IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, which deals with ceiling limits of holding, has an overriding effect over the provisions of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. 2. The Court found that the land in question, measuring 5.60 hectares, was well within the ceiling limits prescribed under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and thus not subject to the provisions of Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. 3. The Court held that the respondent-Municipality was not justified in refusing approval for the petitioner's plotting plans without obtaining a 'no objection' from the Land Reforms Department, as the land in question was not subject to the provisions of Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent-Municipality to dispose of the petitioner's application for sanction in accordance with law without taking into account the objection raised by the State respondent within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of the judgment.
( 1 ) THE Company by the name of K. L. Thirani and Company Limited (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as "the Company" was directed to be wound-up.
( 2 ) PURSUANT thereto the Official Liquidator of this Court took possession of the assets and properties of the Company. In terms of an order dated 3rd december, 1999, the Official Liquidator published a sale notice inviting offers for the assets and properties of the Company as a 'going concern' or on 'as is where is basis'.
( 3 ) THE petitioner gave its offer for purchasing the property, and the company Court took a bid amongst intending offerers and accepted the offer given by the petitioner and confirmed the sale in its favour by an order dated 31st March, 2000.
( 4 ) THE said order clearly records that the Company was sold to the petitioner as a 'going concern' together with all liabilities of the workmen of the Company including the Provident Fund dues.
( 5 ) THE petitioner was also directed to pay the salary of the security guards deployed at the factory premises.
( 6 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner pursuant to in terms of an order the petitioner duly paid the entire purchase price of Rs. 70 lacs and in addition thereto settled the claim of the workmen of the Company towards outstanding Provident Fund dues and others to the tune of around Rs. 75 lacs. The petitioner also paid the salary of the security guards.
( 7 ) AFTER making payment the petitioner took possession of the property in question and engaged itself in clearing and cleaning operation of the factory premises, which was closed down for a long time in order to restart with its business operations. It is submitted that apart from the payment of the aforesaid sum the petitioner have invested a further sum of Rs. 1. 5 crores to restart the factory.
( 8 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as the factory was lying closed for a considerable period of time it required a substantial capital investment and infusion of working capital to effectively make the unit commercially viable.
( 9 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after analyzing the entire situation it transpired that the Company had a lot of surplus lands, which could be effectively used for generating funds. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for mutation by the respondent-Municipality. It also prepared plans for plotting in respect of some portion of the land with the object of submitting and obtaining a sanction plan for carrying out certain constructions upon due approval from the respondent-Municipality.
( 10 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that pursuant to the application for grant of mutation, the concerned Municipality had granted mutation in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said premises being premises Nos. 125, 126 and 127 of B. T. Road, Kolkata-700 035.
( 11 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it would appearfrom the map or plan prepared by it that the proposed construction on certain portion of land in question, would not affect the running of the factory in any manner whatsoever.
( 12 ) ON 18th of February, 2002, the prescribed authority served a notice upon the petitioner under Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1955 Act") intimating that the petitioner's name has been recorded as owner of the land of the Company including the premises Nos. 125, 126 and 127 of B. T. Road, Kolkata-700 035, having a total area of 5. 6 acres.
( 13 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the land in question is within the ceiling limit prescribed by the 1955 Act and consequently does not fall within the purview of Section 6 (3) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1953 Act" ). Therefore, the said notice wrongly mentioned the provision of the said Section 6 (3) of the 1953 act to be applicable to the land in question.
( 14 ) UNDER Section 203 of the W
