Back
1960 Supreme(Cal) 237
High Court Of Calcutta
Banerjee, Niyogi, JJ.
Gopeswar Setiar - Appellants
Vs
Addl Collector Estates Acquisition Maldah - Respondents
Decided on: Dec 07, 1960
Manindra Chandra Chakravarty, N.C.Chakravarti,
A beel, which is connected with a river, cannot be considered a tank fishery under section 6(1)(e) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL ESTATES ACQUISITION ACT, 1953 - SECTION 6(1)(E) - TANK FISHERY - INTERPRETATION - BEEL - RIVER - DISTINCTION - REMAND FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an intermediary whose estate vested in the State Government under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, claimed to retain certain plots of land as tank fisheries under section 6(1)(e) of the Act. The State Government objected, contending that the plots were beels and not tank fisheries, and that they were not in the petitioner's khas possession on the date of vesting. The Revenue Officer rejected the objection, but the District Judge remanded the case for rehearing.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that a beel, which on account of its connection with a river remains a part of the river, is not and cannot be a tank fishery. The court also held that the State Government was not precluded from making a specific case that the petitioner's lessee was holding over under the petitioner after the expiry of the lease and even after the material date.
Issues: 1. Whether a beel, which is connected with a river, can be considered a tank fishery under section 6(1)(e) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953? 2. Whether the State Government can make a specific case that the petitioner's lessee was holding over under the petitioner after the expiry of the lease and even after the material date?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A tank fishery, as defined in section 6(1)(e) of the Act, does not include a beel which is part of a river. A beel is a generic term for a number of geographical features, including marshes, unculturable land producing grasses only, and low culturable lands growing 'boro' paddy. Beels are often formed when waters from several directions accumulate in a particular low land, or when a river changes its course leaving its old bed dry. A beel which is connected with a river throughout the year is considered to be a part of the river, and is not included in the definition of a tank fishery. 2. The State Government is not precluded from making a specific case that the petitioner's lessee was holding over under the petitioner after the expiry of the lease and even after the material date. The petitioner will be at liberty to lead all the evidence that he may require in response to this case.
Final Decision: The High Court discharged the rules issued against the order of the District Judge remanding the case to the Revenue Officer for rehearing, subject to the observation that the Revenue Officer shall bear in mind the observations made in the decision reported in (1) 44 C. W. N. 1079 (Supra) and reiterated in this judgment.
1. THESE two rules are directed against an appellate order passed by the learned District Judge of Maldah, sitting as a Tribunal under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby he remanded two cases to the Revenue Officer for rehearing of objections under section 44 (2a) of the Act.
2. THE petitioner was admittedly an intermediary in the District of Maldah, whose estate vested in the State Government under the provisions of the Act. Included within his estate were C. S. Plots Nos. 155 and 179 of Mouza Janglitola ahd C. S. Plot No. 234: of Mahalla Babla.
The petitioner alleged that the aforesaid plots were tank fisheries in his khas possession and that he was entitled to retain them under the provisions of section 6 (1) (e) of the Act. The petitioner further alleged that he did file a return in form 'b' (prescribed under the rules framed under the Act) expressing his intention to retain the aforesaid plots as his tank fisheries.
3. IN the settlement records, prepared under Chapter V of the Act, the petitioner was recorded as a tenant under the State Government in respect of the aforesaid plots and the rent payable by him was recorded as Rs. 25/2/ -. The said settlement records described all the three plots as 'beels'.
4. ON December 12, 1955, the petitioner alleged, the Additional Collector of Maldah called upon the petitioner to give up possession of the said plots to the State Government and thereafter made his men trespass on the said plots and wrongfully catch fishas there from. It appears that the petitioner moved against the aforesaid order of the Additional Collector and obtained a Rule from this Court, being Civil Rule No. 2690 of 1956, which is now pending. Thereafter, on May 17, 1957, there was an attempt made on behalf of the State Government, under the provision of Section 45 of the Act, to have the settlement records corrected by deleting the name of the petitioner as tenant and by showing the aforesaid plots as vested in the State Government. The attempt failed.
After the introduction of section 44 (2a) in the Act, by the Amending Act XXV of 1957, there was a second attempt made on behalf of the State Government to have the said records of rights corrected. The nature of objection taken to the recording was that the aforesaid plots constituted a 'beel' ; the said Beel was incapable of user in any other way excepting by catching fishes there from; the Beel not having been in the khas possession of the present petitioner, on the date of the vesting, must have vested in the State Government; the Jalkar right therein should therefore be recorded in the name of the West Bengal Government.
5. THE objection failed before the Revenue officer. The State Government appealed against the order of the Revenue Officer to the District Judge. The learned District Judge came to the following conclusions:-
(a) "these three plots constitute a big beel known as Babla Dhap which is connected with another beel named Sadipur Dhap lying to its contiguous north. It will be thus seen that Babla Dhap is only a part of the bigger beel comprising Sadipur Dhap and Babla Dhap which belonged to two different proprietors. Addittedly Gopeswar Satiar was the proprietor of touzi Nos. 468 and 245 to which the disputed dags appertained. Admittedly also he leased out the beel Babla Dhap to a certain mir Tajerali upto the end of Chaitra, 1361 B. S. (b) Before the learned Revenue officer the propriety and correctness of the entries in the as. Khatians were challenged in two ways. On the one hand it was contended that Babla Dhap was a fishery within the meaning of Sec. 5 and not a tank fishery as mentioned in Sec. 6 of the Act. This is one part of the case. The other part of the case was that the Babla Dhap being not in khas possession of the respondent at the relevant time could not be legally retained by Gopeswar Satiar. Both these contentions were, however, overruled by the learned R. O. (c) Ha
