SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(Cal) 279

M.M.Dutt, D.C.Chakravorti
Dhirendra Nath Gole – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Officer Hoogly – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.Basu Choudhury, B.Chandra Mondal, S.N.Mukherjee,

JUDGMENT

1. THE principal question that is involved in this appeal is whether the disputed land measuring 36. 31 acres consisting of banana plants and a few mango trees is an orchard within the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 6 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the act.

2. IN the proceeding under section 6 (1) of the Act, it has been held by the Revenue Officer that the disputed land is not an orchard, but an agricultural land and that the same has vested in the State. P. K. Banerjee J, has affirmed the finding of the Revenue officer and has discharged the Rule nisi out of which this appeal arises.

Section 6 (1) (f) of the Act provides for retention of orchards by intermediaries. Unlike other classes of lands, no ceiling has been prescribed for orchards. Again, under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act, if any tank fishery or any land comprised in a tea-garden, orchard, mill, factory or workshop was held immediately before the date of vesting under a lease, such lease shall be deemed to have been given by the State Government on the same terms and conditions as immediately before such date subject to








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top