Back
High Court of Calcutta
A.K. Sengupta, J.
Dayaleswar Mahadeb Jew – Appellant
Versus
Junior Land Reforms Officer Balughata – Respondent
Civil Rule No. 14516(W) of 1976.
Decided On : Jan 11, 1984
LAND REFORMS ACT - SECTIONS 6 (1) (I), 14 (M) (5), 14 (T) (3) - DEBUTTER PROPERTY - WHETHER DEITY IS A RAIYAT - WHETHER DEBUTTER PROPERTY CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE FAMILY OF SHEBAIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CEILING AREA - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 6 (1) (I), 14 (M) (5), 14 (T) (3) OF THE LAND REFORMS ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, three deities represented by shebait, challenged the Revenue Officer's orders holding that the family of the shebait has retained land as per the ceiling provided by the Land Reforms Act and the lands owned by the endowment other than of a public nature shall be deemed to be lands owned by the beneficiary, who is not entitled to retain any further land.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Revenue Officer acting under Section 140 (T) (3) of the Land reforms Act was bound by the Judgment and Order passed in the proceeding under section 6 (1)0) and the proceeding under section 44 (2a) of the Estates Acquisition 'act. The Court held that the deities are the owners of the properties dedicated to them and are entitled to retain so much of the land as permissible under Clause (e)of Section 14-M (1) of the Land Reforms Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Revenue Officer acting under Section 140 (T) (3) of the Land reforms Act was bound by the Judgment and Order passed in the proceeding under section 6 (1)0) and the proceeding under section 44 (2a) of the Estates Acquisition 'act? 2. Whether the deities are the owners of the properties dedicated to them and are entitled to retain so much of the land as permissible under Clause (e)of Section 14-M (1) of the Land Reforms Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that once a Revenue Officer upon consideration of all relevant materials and evidence has come to a definite finding and conclusion in the proceeding under Section 44 (2a) and Section 6 (1) (i) of the Estates acquisition Act and has granted relief and/ or exemption in pursuance. thereof, unless they are set aside and/or reversed by the appropriate appellate or revisional authority such finding and conclusion are binding on the Revenue Officer deciding a similar issue under the provision of Section 14 (T) of the land Reforms Act. 2. The High Court held that the deities being raiyats within the meaning of section 2 (10) are entitled to retain so much of the land as permissible under Clause (e)of Section 14-M (1).
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the impugned orders of the Revenue Officer and issued a writ in the nature of Certiorari.
1. IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, being three several deities represented by shebajt, have challenged the Judgments and Orders dated 14th August, 1976, 16th August, 1976 and 13th October, 1976 in 7a Forms L. R. Case nos. 201, 202 and 203 of 1976 passed by the Revenue Officer, Mahishadal Thana, settlement Camp, the Respondent No. 3, under Section 14 (1) (3) read with Section 14 (M) (5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the land Reforms Act..
2. IN the said impugned Judgments and orders the Revenue Officer held that the family of the shebait has retained land as per ceiling provided by the Land Reforms act and as such the lands owned by the endowment concerned other than of a public nature shall be deemed to be lands owned by the beneficiary and the beneficiary shall be deemed to be a raiyat under the Land Reforms Act, who is not entitled to retain any further land in view of the ceiling provision under the Land Reforms Act. The case of the petitioners is that by a registered Deed of Gift and/or the Arpannama dated 14th July, 1893, one Smt. Bichitrimoyee Dassi, since deceased, gifted and/or dedicated all the lands covered by the said Deed of Gift and/or Arpannama to the three deities being Shri Shri Dayaleswar mahadeb Jiew, Shri Shri Trilochaneswaraksha jiew and Shri Shri Lakshmi janardhan Jiew. In other words, the said donor created an abosolute "debutter" of the said lands in favour of the said deities. The deities became the absolute owners of the dedicated 'property. When the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Estates Acquisition act) came Into force, a proceeding was initiated against the petitioners to ascertain whether the said endowment was exclusively for religious purpose or not. The said case was initiated under Section 6 (1 (i) of the Estates Acquisition. Act by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tamluk settlement 'b' Camp, the Respondent No 4.
3. SECTION 6 of the Estates Acquisition Act deals with the right of intermediary to retain certain lands and Clause (i) of sub-section (1) thereof provides as follows :
"where the intermediary is a corporation or an institution established exclusively for a religious or a charitable purpose or both, or is a person holding under a trust or an endowment or other legal obligation exclusively for a purpose which is charitable or religious or both land held in khas by such corporation or institution, or person, for such purpose (including land held by any person not being a tenant, by leave or license of such Corporation or institution or person".
4. IN the said proceeding the concerned revenue Officer made all relevant enquiries and received evidence. He found that the entire property had been recorded in the revenue settlement records in the names of the deities as Debutter. He also found that the accounts had been regularly maintained and the entire income of the property was being ultilised exclusively for religious purpose. From the evidence of local people as recorded by the said Revenue Officer, it appears that temples of the deities were open to the public. The Land Revenue officer also took into consideration the decision in Case No. 168 of 1964 in the proceeding under Section 44 (2a) of the estates Acquisition Act. Upon consideration of all the relevant facts and materials, the concerned Revenue Officer came to the conclusion that the entire income of the property was being exclusively used for religious purpose and the said Debutter was entitled to the benefit of Section 6 (1) (I) read with first proviso to Section 17 (1) of the Estates Acquisition Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of the aforesaid findings and determination of the concerned Revenue Officers holding that the lands are Debutfer lands and the endowment in question is exclusively for religious purpose, another Revenue Officer in the proceeding under Secti
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
