Back
2000 Supreme(Cal) 15
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ajay Nath Ray, J.
Samir Talapatra & Ors.
vs.
Gurupada Dey & Ors.
F.M.A. No. 706 of 1998
Decided on : January 6, 2000
Advocate Appeared:
Gopal Chandra Mukherjee, Anima Chakraborty for the petitioners;
Mrinal Kanti Das, Bidyut Baran Biswas for the respondents;
Durgadas Roy, Asit Bhattacharyya-II for the State.
An order passed by the B.L. & L.R.O. under section 4 of the 1975 Act is not a final order and is subject to a reference under section 9 of the Act.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL ACQUISITION OF HOMESTEAD LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS, ARTISANS AND FISHERMEN ACT, 1975 - SECTION 4, 9 - ORDER OF COLLECTOR UNDER SECTION 9 - FINALITY - APPEAL - JURISDICTION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute arose regarding vesting of land under West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1975 Act'). The occupiers of the land claimed that the land had vested in their favor under section 4 of the 1975 Act, while the owners of the land contended that the order of vesting was passed without proper notice to them. The matter was referred to the Collector under section 9 of the 1975 Act, who passed an order in favor of the owners. The occupiers challenged the Collector's order before the High Court, which referred the matter to a larger bench due to a difference of opinion among the judges.
Finding of the Court:
The larger bench held that the order passed by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer (B.L. & L.R.O.) under section 4 of the 1975 Act was not a final order, and therefore, a reference under section 9 of the Act was maintainable. The court interpreted section 9 of the 1975 Act to mean that any dispute between the owner and the occupier regarding the vesting of land under section 4 could be referred to the Collector under section 9, and the Collector's decision on such reference would be final.
Issues: 1. Whether the order passed by the B.L. & L.R.O. under section 4 of the 1975 Act was a final order. 2. Whether a reference under section 9 of the Act was maintainable against the order passed by the B.L. & L.R.O.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order passed by the B.L. & L.R.O. under section 4 of the 1975 Act was not a final order, as it was subject to a reference under section 9 of the Act. The court reasoned that the language of section 9 was broad and did not exclude any order passed under section 4 from being referred to the Collector. 2. The court held that a reference under section 9 of the Act was maintainable against the order passed by the B.L. & L.R.O., as the dispute between the owner and the occupier regarding the vesting of land under section 4 was a matter that could be referred to the Collector under section 9.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order passed by the Collector and directed the Additional District Magistrate and District Land & Land Reforms Officer to decide the reference under section 9 of the Act afresh.
Ajay Nath Ray, J.: This is a reference made to me by an order dated 22nd February, 1999 of the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice S.K. Mookherjee (as His Lordship then was). The reference had been earlier sent to the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.P. Banerjee (as His Lordship then was) by an order dated 11th February, 1998 passed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice Prabha Shankor Mishra of this Hon'ble Court.
2. That order of 11th February, 1998 was consequential upon a difference of opinion jointly recorded by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Mookherjee and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P. Sarkar-II (as Their Lordship then were).
The order of 6th February, 1998 was as follows:-
"Since we have differed on the question of interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions, the records may be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for an appropriate order of reference."
3. On the same date, i.e., 6.2.98 Their Lordships delivered their differing judgments. Those judgments were delivered in a Mandamus Appeal filed by the clients of Mr. Mukherjee from a judgment and order of P.K. Samanta, J., delivered by His Lordship on 29th September, 1997.
4. The writ petitioners before Samanta, J. were Mr. Mukherjee's clients. They lost before His Lordship and the writ petition failed in the first Court. S. K. Mookherjee, J. was of the opinion that the appeal should fail. Sarkar II, J. however, opined that the appeal should be allowed and that there should be a direction to the District Collector to hear the Reference Case afresh, filed against the order dated 10.5.95.
5. His Lordship also set aside the order dated 28.8.95 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Reforms), in brief A.D.M. (L.R.).
6. It appears, however, that the order dated 28.8.95 was passed by the A.D.M. & D.L. & L.R.O., Nadia, i.e., Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Nadia.
7. The order dated 28.8.95 formed the central subject-matter of dispute in the writ petition before Samanta, J. which His Lordship also specifically observed.
8. How the order came about be understood so that the difference in opinion might be appreciated.
9. The clients of Mr. Mukherjee claimed to be persons entitled to be beneficiaries by reason of the operation of the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975.
10. Under this Act of 1975, occupiers have been defined in the explanation of section 2 and roughly speaking they are agricultural labourers, artisans or fishermen; they might be tenants, licensees or trespassers; if the land in possession of the defined occupier does not exceed .0334 hectare, then such land, by reason of section 4 of the said Act shall stand acquired by the State Government and vest absolutely in favour of the occupier.
If the land or area in occupation is more only the above area mentioned will vest.
Section 4 of the said Act is set out below-
"4. Acquisition of lands for occupiers.- Where an occupier has been in possession of any land on the 26th clay of June, 1975 then-
(a) if the land in his possession does not exceed .0334 hectare, such land, and
(b) if the land in his possession exceeds .0334 hectare, so much of such land does not exceed .0334 hectare, shall stand acquired by the State Government and shall thereupon stand transferred to and vest absolutely in favour of such occupier."
One Talapatra originally claimed to be the occupier and he filed an application before the authorities for order and action accepting him as the occupier in whose favour the land in question situated at Nakashipara, Krishnanagar, Nadia has vested.
11. By certain orders passed in or about July 1992, Talapatra's application was accepted by the Revenue Officer but for all our purposes, four heirs and legal representatives of Talapatra are to be taken as substituting him.
12. The owners of the land, against whom the vesting would be operative, have been represented before me by Mr. Das. Mr. Das's clients made a refere
