Back
2005 Supreme(Cal) 111
High Court Of Calcutta
Aloke Chakrabarti, S. P. Talukdar
KHAITAN INDIA LTD - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. L. R. T. 628 Of 2004
Decided On : 02/16/2005
A.DUBEY, DEBASIS KAR GUPTA, H.B.DUBEY
In cases of resumption of excess land, including land allowed in excess of the prescribed ceiling, proceedings for resumption must be initiated under Section 14Z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and not under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT - LAND CEILING - SECTION 14Z - WEST BENGAL ESTATES ACQUISITION ACT - SECTION 6(3) - The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, including Section 14Z, applies to the resumption of excess land, including land allowed in excess of the prescribed ceiling. In such cases, proceedings for resumption must be initiated under Section 14Z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and not under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, owner of a sugar mill, was served with a notice proposing to resume surplus land under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. Petitioner challenged the notice, arguing that the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, including Section 14Z, applied and not the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 14Z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act applies to the resumption of excess land, including land allowed in excess of the prescribed ceiling. In such cases, proceedings for resumption must be initiated under Section 14Z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and not under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, including Section 14Z, applies to the resumption of excess land, including land allowed in excess of the prescribed ceiling. 2. Whether proceedings for resumption of excess land should be initiated under Section 14Z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act or Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 14Z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is an enforcement of a new provision of law in an existing statute, but making a declaration which is clarificatory in nature and not an enforcement of new law. 2. If retention was permitted of an excess land beyond the permissible ceiling at any point of time when the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was not in force still then, law is to be applied as is applicable when a proceeding for resumption of excess land is proposed. 3. Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act applies in case of resumption of a land of a tenant, but when petitioners are entitled to be treated as owner by virtue of applicability of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act in view of provision contained in section 4 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, for any proposal of resumption of excess land proceeding has to be availed as provided under section 14z of the west Bengal Land Reforms Act and not section 6 (3) of the West Bengal Estates acquisition Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the original application was allowed, and the notification dated 20th September 2002 was quashed.
( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is owner of sugar mill situated at ramnagar in the district of Nadia having a land measuring 8045. 63 acres distributed in Nadia and Murshidabad districts. Earlier the said sugar mill was known as M/s. Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. which was renamed as khaitan India Ltd. (hereinafter called as petitioner company ).
( 2 ) THE Government of West Bengal by its order dated 12th March, 1964 passed under section 6 (3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 allowed the aforesaid Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. to retain an area of 8046. 13 acres of land for use of said mill.
( 3 ) PETITIONER company was served with a notice dated 20th September, 2002 granting the petitioner liberty to file objection against decision of State government proposing to resume the remaining area of the land as surplus to its requirement under proviso to section 6 (3) of the said Act upon a finding that an area of more or less 1743. 27 acres of land may be required for the purpose of running the said mill.
( 4 ) PETITIONER preferred an application before West Bengal land Reforms and tenancy Tribunal, inter alia, asking for withholding and/or rescinding the said notice dated 20th September, 2002 or for quashing the same. By order dated 16th April, 2003 the said application was disposed of without granting any relief to the petitioner. Challenging the same, present writ petition was filed.
( 5 ) HEARD Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Debasish Kar Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents.
( 6 ) CONTENTION of petitioner is that the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and chapter IIB thereof were already in force when show-cause notice was issued on 20th September, 2002 by the concerned authorities against the petitioner and therefore, no proceeding under section 6 (3) of the West Bengal Estates acquisition Act could be initiated in respect of the said lands in respect of which west Bengal Land Reforms Act applied and not the similar provision as contained in section 6 (3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act.
( 7 ) CONTENTION of petitioner is that section 3 of the West Bengal Land reforms Act provides for an overriding effect of the said Act and also section 14j contained an overriding effect of the said Chapter providing for ceiling prescription therein.
( 8 ) IT is contended by Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for petitioners that tribunal failed to consider the vital difference in respect of the status of petitioners under the said two statutes. Reference was made to sub-rules (2)and (3) of Rule 4 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules, 1954 recognising the petitioner No. 1 as a tenant under the State and the provisions contained in section 4 (1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act recognising petitioner No. 1 as the owner of the lands. It is argued on behalf of petitioners that in view of such vital difference in the status of petitioner No. 1 in respect of the said land, proceeding under section 6 (3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act cannot be initiated any further. In case a Government proposes to resume land at any time it becoming excess than the requirement, it has to proceed under section 14z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
( 9 ) CONTENTION has further been made as regards scope of section 14-q of the west Bengal Land Reforms Act as it stood at the relevant time.
( 10 ) MR. Debashis Kar Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents first raised a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of present writ petition on the point urged by petitioners as this point of law as regards applicability of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and section 6 (3) thereof, no contention was made before the learned Tribunal and there being no decision on the point by the learned Tribunal, according to law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125, the present impugn
