Back
High Court of Calcutta
S.C. Sen, Arun Kumar Dutta, JJ.
Bibhuti Bhusan Bankura – Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal – Respondent
T No. 2150 of 1991
Decided On : Jan 21, 1994
LAND REFORMS - WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT, 1955 - SECTION 14T(5) - REVENUE OFFICER'S POWER TO ENQUIRE INTO BENAMI TRANSFERS - NOT BARRED BY SECTION 4 OF THE BENAMI TRANSACTIONS (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1988 - NO REPUGNANCY BETWEEN THE TWO ACTS - SECTION 14T(5) IS NOT ULTRA VIRES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a family of raiyats, were allowed to retain certain amounts of agricultural and non-agricultural lands under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act in 1961. The petitioners' father had gifted away some land to the petitioners, and the petitioners had transferred some land to each other under a Nirupan Patra. The names of the petitioners were duly mutated in respect thereof. The revenue officer initiated a suo-motu proceeding against the petitioners under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (L.R. Act) in 1979 for enquiring into their holding. The said case was disposed of by the revenue officer in 1980, holding that the petitioners were entitled to retain certain amount of land, and that there was no surplus land liable to vest to the State under the Act. The revenue officer had even thereafter initiated a suo-motu proceeding against the petitioners under Section 14T(5) of the L.R. Act for their failure to submit a return under Section 14T(10) of the Act. The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the revenue officer's orders. The single judge directed the petitioners to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority with liberty to urge all the points taken in the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that: (i) Section 14T(5) of the L.R. Act is not ultra vires as being repugnant to Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (B.T.P. Act); (ii) Enquiry into benami under Section 14T(5) of the L.R. Act is not prohibited by Section 4 of the B.T.P. Act; (iii) Second proceeding to determine surplus land is not barred; (iv) Review of the previous determination is not barred by limitation; and (v) Retrospective effect of the amended provisions of Section 14T(5) of the L.R. Act is not arbitrary and incompetent.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 14T(5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is ultra vires as being repugnant to Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988? 2. Whether enquiry into benami under Section 14T(5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is prohibited by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988? 3. Whether second proceeding to determine surplus land is barred? 4. Whether review of the previous determination is barred by limitation? 5. Whether retrospective effect of the amended provisions of Section 14T(5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is arbitrary and incompetent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 14T(5) of the L.R. Act and Section 4 of the B.T.P. Act are not repugnant to each other as they cover different fields and deal with separate and distinct matters. Section 14T(5) of the L.R. Act is not ultra vires. 2. Enquiry into benami under Section 14T(5) of the L.R. Act is not prohibited by Section 4 of the B.T.P. Act as the enquiry is not a suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami. 3. Second proceeding to determine surplus land is not barred as the revenue officer had no authority to decide the question of benami in the earlier proceeding. 4. Review of the previous determination is not barred by limitation as the subsequent proceeding is not a review of the earlier proceeding, but a fresh proceeding which the revenue officer has subsequently been empowered to decide under the amended provisions of Section 14T(5) of the L.R. Act. 5. Retrospective effect of the amended provisions of Section 14T(5) of the L.R. Act is not arbitrary and incompetent as the legislature was keen to defeat the unhappy devices for evading land ceiling from 5th May, 1953 onwards in terms of a policy decision of the legislature.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed. The impugned order passed by the court below stands confirmed. The Writ Petitioner-Appellants shall be at liberty to prefer Appeal to the Appellate Authority with liberty to urge all the points taken in the Writ Petition in terms of the orders of the court below.
ARUN KUMAR DUTTA, J.
1. THE instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th July, 1990 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on a Writ Application, being C.O. No. 8422 (W) of 1991, arising out of the judgment and order dated 5.7.91 passed by the Revenue Officer/Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Narayangarh, District- Midnapore, in the relevant proceeding Case No. of 1991 and 14 of 1991 under the relevant previsions of West Bengal Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as L.R. Act).
2. THE writ petitioner No.1, Bhibuti Bhusan Bankurs, was allowed to retain 25 acres of agricultural lands, and 2.35 acres of non-agricultural lands and .03 acre of homestead land in a Big Raiyat proceeding under the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act in the year 1961. His father Brojo Gopal had gifted away 3.79 acres of land in favour of the writ petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, the sons of the petitioner No. 1, under a registered Deed of Gift dated 26.8.61. Bhibuti Bhusan, the petitioner No. 1, as well, had transferred 12.43 acres of land in their favour under a Nirupan Patra dated 23.3.64. THE names of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 had accordingly been duly mutated in respect thereof under the Mutation Case No. 145(1) of 1973-74, and they had thereafter paid rents to the State Government accordingly. The family of Bhibuti Bhusan, as on 15.2.1971, consisted of himself, his wife, and five unmarried daughters. His two sons, the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, who were then adult and married, having land by virtue of the Deed of Gift and the Deed of Nirupan Patra executed in their favour by their father and grandfather, as stated above, had been excluded from his (petitioner No, 1's) family.
3. THE Revenue officer concerned had suo-motu initiated a proceeding against the petitioner No. 1 under Section 14T(3), read with Sections 14M and 145 of the L.R. Act, in the year 1979 for enquiring into his holding, being 7A Case No. 296 of 1979.
4. THE said case had been disposed by him (Revenue Officer) on 27.12.80 holding, inter-alia, that his (Ptr, No.1's) family consisted of more than five members and he was accordingly entitled to retain 17.30 acres of agricultural land, whereas he was holding 14.96 acres of agricultural and non-agricultural lands together on 15.2.1971, and had no surplus land liable to vest to the State under the Act. THE said case was, accordingly, dropped. THE relevant records of rights, had as well been attested by the Revenue Officer accordingly on 27.8.90. But the Revenue Officer had even thereafter initiated a suo-motu proceeding against the petitioner No. 1, being case No. 14/91, for his failure to submit return under Section 14T(10) of the Act in Form No. 7AA. THE notice thereof was served upon him on 3.7.91 at 3P.M. asking him to furnish a statement showing schedule of total land held by him since 7.8.69, and the particulars of lands transferred by him thereafter with a choice of retention according to law. On the same very day (3.7.91), another notice was served upon him in connection with another case, being No. 3/91, under Section 14T(5), read with Sections 14T(8) and 14T(9), as also Section 57 of the Act, on the allegation that he (petitioner No. 1) had transferred 7.70 acres of land to his sons, petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. in Mouza-Bahurupa, in the year 1964, and his father Brojo Gopal has as well transferred 3.80 acres of land to his grandsons (the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3) in the same Mouza-Bahurupa and Charutibhara in the year 1961 and there was prima-facie reason to believe that the said transfers were nothing but "Benami" in their names (petitioners Nos. 2 and 3), made to evade the ceiling limit under the Act. THE petitioner No. 1 was directed to be present during the field enquiry on 4.7.1991 for ascertaining whether the transferees were in possession of the lands in question on and from the dates of transfers. THE case was fixed for hearing on the following date, i.e.
AI
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
