Back
2012 Supreme(Cal) 833
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, J.
Roopachera Tea Co. Ltd. & Another
Versus
State of West Bengal & Others
W.P. NO. 3228 (W) OF 2010
Decided on: 11-09-2012
For the Petitioners:Sakti Nath Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate, Saptangshu Basu, Suvashis Sengupta, Ms. Sreya Basu Mallick, Ms. Indira Mitra, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Amitesh Banerjee, Tapas Ballav Mandal, Kishore Dutta, Advocates.
The High Court held that the District Magistrate had failed to properly investigate the matter as directed by the High Court in its order dated 23rd September 2009, which was passed on consent of both sides. The Court also held that the District Magistrate had failed to consider the relevant statutory provisions and records, and had not given the petitioners an opportunity to produce evidence in support of their claim.
Headnote:
LAND LAW - WEST BENGAL ESTATES ACQUISITION ACT, 1953 - LEASE - RENEWAL - STATUTORY TENANCY - RIGHT OF RETENTION - INTERMEDIARIES - SECTION 6(1)(F) - SECTION 6(2) - SECTION 6(3) - SCHEDULE 'F' - FORM I - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE - BURDEN OF PROOF - EVICTION - PARTIAL EVICTION - INJUNCTION - JURISDICTION - DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION - COURT'S ORDER - SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE - FUNCTUS OFFICIO - RES JUDICATA - ADJUDICATION - ADVERSARIAL INVESTIGATION - EQUITABLE JURISDICTION - LOGICAL SOLUTION - CONSENT OF PARTIES - MERITS OF THE CLAIMS OF THE PETITIONERS - LATENT POSSIBILITY OF INCREMENT IN THE PERIOD OF LEASE - EXERCISE OF OPTION - BURDEN OF ASSERTING AND PROVING BY RELEVANT EVIDENCE - BURDEN ON STATE - VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - RESTRICTIONS ON PLEADINGS - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - IMPROPER INVESTIGATION - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - EQUITABLE JURISDICTION - MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Roopachera Tea Co. Ltd., challenged the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 8th November 2009, passed by the District Judge, Jalpaiguri, in Case No.1 of 2009. The petitioners claimed that they had a statutory lease for 1560.31 acres of land, which was previously owned by the Rahut family, a Zaminder family of Jalpaiguri. The lease was granted in 1979 for a period of 30 years, with an option for renewal. The petitioners alleged that the State Government had granted a fresh lease of a portion of the land to respondent No.8, Raghu Utkarsh Tea & Plantation Pvt. Ltd., without any notice or knowledge to the petitioners. The petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking to set aside the impugned order and restrain the private respondents from interfering with their possession of the leased land.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate on 18th November 2009 was illegal and contrary to law. The Court held that the District Magistrate had failed to properly investigate the matter as directed by the High Court in its order dated 23rd September 2009, which was passed on consent of both sides. The Court also held that the District Magistrate had failed to consider the relevant statutory provisions and records, and had not given the petitioners an opportunity to produce evidence in support of their claim. The Court further held that the State Government, being the lessor, was obliged to protect the interest of the lessee and having possession of all records and documents ought to have been directed to produce the same but the learned Magistrate did not issue any such direction.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate was illegal and contrary to law? 2. Whether the District Magistrate had failed to properly investigate the matter as directed by the High Court? 3. Whether the District Magistrate had failed to consider the relevant statutory provisions and records? 4. Whether the District Magistrate had not given the petitioners an opportunity to produce evidence in support of their claim? 5. Whether the State Government was obliged to protect the interest of the lessee and having possession of all records and documents ought to have been directed to produce the same?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate on 18th November 2009 was illegal and contrary to law. 2. The Court held that the District Magistrate had failed to properly investigate the matter as directed by the High Court in its order dated 23rd September 2009, which was passed on consent of both sides. 3. The Court also held that the District Magistrate had failed to consider the relevant statutory provisions and records, and had not given the petitioners an opportunity to produce evidence in support of their claim. 4. The Court further held that the State Government, being the lessor, was obliged to protect the interest of the lessee and having possession of all records and documents ought to have been directed to produce the same but the learned Magistrate did not issue any such direction.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate on 18th November 2009 and directed the District Magistrate to rehear the matter and pass a final order afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties and also upon considering the records to be produced by the Land and Land Revenue Department of the State Government.
Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.
1. The writ petitioners have questioned the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 8th November, 2009 passed by the District Judge, Jalpaiguri in case No.1 of 2009. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submits that the Anandapur Tea Estate was previously owned by the Rahut, a Zaminder family of Jalpaiguri. They constituted a family partnership under the name of M/s. Rahut Syndicate for control and management of Anandapur Tea Estate. After the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act of 1953 came into force upon determination of ceiling of land for tea gardens by Government of West Bengal, 1560.31 acres of land was allotted to be retained by the said Rahuts for tea plantation and ancillary purposes and a temporary lease for an area of 1560.31 acres of land was granted in favour of M/s. Rahut Syndicate in 1977. Subsequently, upon determination, 30 years lease was granted in favour of M/s. Rahut Syndicate on November 19, 1979. Rent was being paid regularly by Rahut family and they were in possession of the aforementioned area of land. Thereafter, Anandapur Tea Estate was sold to Long View Tea Co. Ltd. which in turn transferred the same to the writ petitioner No.1 viz. Roopachera Tea Co. Ltd. Subsequent to such transfer the area of land measuring about 1560.31 acres was duly recorded in the name of the writ petitioner No.1 by collector’s memo No.578/T dated 28th August, 2002. It was submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that the plot numbers covering the total area of the land is narrated under Paragraph 4 of the writ petition. He also submitted that the right title and interest of Long View Tea Co. Ltd. in respect of the aforementioned area of land vested on petitioner No.1. It was submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that the schedule of lease hold land as described in the lease itself as follows:
“An area of 1560.31 acres of land as recorded in Revisional Settlement map and Records of Right of Mouza Anandapur (illegible) Parganas J.L. No.81, P.S. Mal, District jalpaiguri, Sub-Registry Office Maynaguri, Touzi No.411 as per Land & Land Revenue Department, Land Reforms Branch Order No.18943-L Ref dt.27.12.1968, No.5698-6 Ref. dt. (illegible) amended by (illegible) No.5658-6 Ref. dt. (illegible) Ref. dt. 11.08.1978, under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.”
2. It was also submitted that the lease in question is a statutory lease strictly in accordance with Form – I of Schedule ‘F’ of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules. Mr. Mukherjee referred Para 1 of Schedule ‘F’ which reads as follows:
“1. Land comprised in a tea garden retained by an intermediary under Sub-section (1), read with Sub-section (3), of Section 6 shall be deemed to be held directly under the State from the date of vesting as a tenant until a lease is granted in Form – I appended to this schedule, on such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Collector is a summary settlement, and thereafter, on a lease being granted in Form – I appended to the schedule, on the terms and conditions specified in such lease. There shall be a lease in Form – I in respect of each intermediary, and the same shall be registered and numbered in the office of the Collector.”
3. Mr. Mukherjee also referred Rule 4 of West Bengal Acquisitions Rules, 1954 which reads as follows:
“4. Terms and conditions of holding land retained by an intermediary under Section 6(1). Any land retained by an intermediary under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, be held by him from the date of vesting on the terms and conditions specified below:
4. Terms and conditions above referred to (A) Land comprised in a tea garden : The intermediary shall hold such land on the terms and conditions set out in Schedule ‘F’ appended to these Rules.”
5. He also refers Paragraph 16(A) of Form – I of Schedule ‘F’ which reads as follows:
“That the lease/leases shall be entitl
