Back
2008 Supreme(Cal) 789
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta & Prasenjit Mandal, JJ.
Ganga Ram Ghosh & Ors.
vs.
B. L. & L. R. O. & Ors.
W.P.L.R.T. No. 12 of 2008
Decided On: August 06, 2008
Ramapati Roy, Sujata Adhikary, Miru Hazra for the petitioners;
P.K. Ghosh, Amrita Sinha for the State.
A civil court's decree declaring that purchased land cannot be treated as vested land overrides any subsequent vesting order and issuance of pattas, which become illegal and invalid.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - VESTING OF LAND - CORRECTION OF RECORDS - APPLICABILITY OF CIVIL COURT DECREE - CANCELLATION OF PATTAS - RECTIFICATION OF RECORDS - IMPLEMENTATION OF TRIBUNAL ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
Applicants purchased land from a vendor intermediary, but the State Government denied their title, claiming it as vested land. A civil suit for declaration of title was filed, and the decree was granted in favor of the applicants. The applicants applied for correction of records-of-rights, but it was refused. They approached the Tribunal, which directed the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to treat the application as a representation, hear the applicants, and dispose of it by passing a reasoned order.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal found that it was not possible to implement the order due to the vesting of the disputed plots and the issuance of pattas to the private respondents. The Court held that the vesting order and subsequent issuance of pattas were illegal and invalid in light of the Civil Court's judgment and decree.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order was correctly implemented.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Tribunal's order could have been implemented by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer by canceling the pattas, hearing the persons to whom they were issued, and asking the intermediary vendor and/or their heirs to spare equivalent quantum of land from their retained land. The object of the Tribunal's order was to give relief to the applicants from the rigors of vesting, which was possible and feasible.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and the order passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. It directed the Revenue Officer to take steps for rectifying the records, canceling the pattas, and issuing fresh pattas to the persons who were issued pattas previously.
1. We gave direction for filing affidavit on 28th February, 2008; however, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. In spite of notice no one appears for the private respondents.
2. This application is against the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 20th November, 2007. By the judgment and order impugned, applicants' application, being O.A. 3984/03 was dismissed. In the said application, the applicants alleged that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Ranaghat- II has not acted in terms of the judgment and order dated 20th January, 2003 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA. 3174/02.
3. The fact of the case is that the applicants purchased two plots of land from the vendor intermediary for a valuable consideration. The quantum of land of the said two plots, in aggregate was 38 decimals. At one point of time, the State Government denied applicants' right, title and interest in the land contending the same being vested land.
4. Thereafter, a civil suit was filed by the applicants for declaration of title in which the State Government and the private respondents were parties. The suit was contested by the State and the suit was decreed granting declaration of title in favour of the applicants.
5. The private respondents did not contest the decree. However, both the State and the private respondents preferred two appeals separately and the appeal Court did not interfere with the decree and the decree passed by the learned Trial Judge was affirmed. There was also no appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree. It was held in sum and substance; the appellant had purchased lawfully, out of the retained land, and the effect of the decree is that the land could not be held to be a vested one.
6. On the strength of the decree, the applicant applied for correction of records-of-rights; however, the same was refused. As such, the applicant approached the learned Tribunal with the earlier application, being O.A. 3174 of 2002 and the said application was disposed of with a direction upon the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Ranaghat-II to treat the application as representation before him, hear the applicants and dispose it of by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. Since Civil Court had declared title in respect of the subject two plots of land. Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Ranaghat-II is directed to explore all possibilities of treating subject plots of land which was purchased by the applicants after the date of vesting under Estates Acquisition Act and retain the land of the intermediary as whose subject surplus and was subject land vested by deducting equal quantum of land from the retained land of the intermediary which is still in his possession or in the possession of his heirs within four months from the date of communication of this order.
7. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Ranaghat-II, pursuant to the said direction, tried to implement the same but while doing so, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, found that it was not possible as the disputed plots of land were vested in terms of the said Act from the erstwhile intermediary as compensation, towards vesting, has already paid and pattas have been granted to the private respondents after vesting.
8. Learned Tribunal, having noted the aforesaid fact, found that when effort was made to implement the order and such effort was not found to be fruitful, therefore, there was no fault on the part of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer.
9. Mr. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal was not implemented at all reading the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, in real sense has nullified the Civil Court's judgment and decree treating the land being vested one. Learned Tribunal's order was not implemented at all. It is not a case where the aforesaid o
