Back
2002 Supreme(Cal) 195
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Altamas Kabir & S. N. Bhattacharjee, JJ.
Bengal N.R.I. Complex Ltd.
Vs.
Sudhansu Rang & Ors.
Bengal N.R.I. Complex Ltd.
Vs
Subal Mal & Ors.
Sudhansu Rang & Ors.
Vs
State West Bengal & Ors.
M.A.T. No. 1986 of 1998 with M.A.T. No. 2316 of 1998 and W.P. No. 11020 (W) of 1998
Decided on : March 20, 2002
Saktinath Mukherjee, Chandranath Mukherjee, Soumik Mukherjee in both the appeals and for the respondents for the appellants No. 10 in W. P. No. 11020(W) of 1998;
Priyabrata Mukherjee, Lalit Mohan Mahato for the respondent Nos. 16 to 20 in W. P. No. 11020 (W) of 1998.
Puspendu Bikash Sahoo, Amalendu Sen for the writ petitioners/respondents No. 1 to 7 in M.A.T. No. 2316 of 1998;
Ansar Mondal for the added respondents.
Sadhan Gupta, Chandreyee Alam for the State.
Bargadars' rights under sections 14S(2) and 14S(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, are contingent upon their status as bargadars on the date of vesting of the land.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - BARGADARS - RIGHTS - SETTLEMENT OF VESTED LANDS - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 14S(2) AND 14S(3) OF THE WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT, 1955.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two writ petitions challenging the settlement of a plot of land with Bengal N.R.I. Complex Ltd. by the State Government. The petitioners, claiming to be bargadars of the land, asserted their rights under sections 14S(2) and 14S(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The State Government, on the other hand, contended that the petitioners were not bargadars on the date of vesting of the land and hence not entitled to the claimed benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners could not establish their status as bargadars on the relevant date, namely, 15th February 1971, when Chapter IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 came into force. The court also noted that the barga certificates relied upon by the petitioners were issued after the said date and could not be accepted as the basis of their claim.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were bargadars of the land on the date of vesting, entitling them to the benefits under sections 14S(2) and 14S(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955? 2. Whether the barga certificates issued to the petitioners after the relevant date could be relied upon to establish their claim?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted sections 14S(2) and 14S(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and held that to avail the benefits under these provisions, a person must be a recorded bargadar on the date of vesting of the land. 2. The court found that the petitioners failed to prove their status as bargadars on the relevant date and that the barga certificates issued to them after that date could not be accepted as evidence of their claim.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, upholding the settlement of the land with Bengal N.R.I. Complex Ltd. by the State Government.
Altamas Kabir, J.: Claiming to be bargadars of Plot No. 345 of Mouza-Madurdaha, measuring about 37.25 acres and pertaining to Khatain No.195, P.S. Tiljala, District 24 Parganas (South), Shri Sudhansu Rang and five others filed a writ application in this Court, being W. P. No. 11020(W) of 1998, challenging settlement of the said plot with the Bengal N.R.I. Complex Ltd. On 9th June, 1998, a learned Single Judge while directing the matter to appear as a listed motion after a fortnight, also passed an interim order of status quo as regards possession of the land as on that date till disposal of the application.
2. Aggrieved by the order of status quo passed in its absence, the Bengal N.R.I. Complex Ltd., the respondent No. 10 in the writ petition filed an appeal against the said order, being M.A.T. No. 1986 of 1998.
3. Another Writ Petition, being W. P. No. 11692(W) of 1998, was filed by one Shri Subal Mal and six others, on similar grounds and the same was disposed of on 1st July, 1998, with a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the writ petitioners' representation, being Annexure 'C' to the writ petition, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioners and taking into account the documents and papers to be filed at the time of hearing. The status quo as on the date of the order was directed to be maintained till such disposal.
4. Bengal N.R.I. Complex Ltd. also filed an appeal against the said order, being M.A.T. No. 2316 of 1998.
5. On 27th July, 1998, when the application for stay filed in the two appeals came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court, the two appeals were directed to be listed for hearing along with the stay application on the materials already on record. Subsequently, on 28th July, 1998, on consent of the parties, the writ applications were directed to be heard along with the appeals.
6. The two appeals and the connected writ application, being W. P. No. 11020(W) of 1998, were accordingly taken up for hearing together.
7. Appearing for Bengal N.R.I. Complex Ltd., Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee submitted that the claim of the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions was without any basis and there could not be any enforceable claim under section 14S of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, unless the claimant was the bargadar of a vested plot on the date of coming into force of Chapter IIB, namely, 15th February, 1971. Furthermore, although, the writ petitioners were claiming to have been inducted as bargadars in the lands in question, no particulars have been provided of the land purportedly under their cultivation and barga right was claimed in respect of certain undefined and undemarcated portions of the aforesaid plot. Mr. Mukherjee urged that although certain areas have been indicated in the barga certificates alleged to have been issued in 1984, no other particulars have been provided to enable identification of the specific portions alleged to have been settled in barga right by virtue of the purported barga certificates. Mr. Mukherjee urged that no entertainable claim could be made and sustained on the basis of such vague and indefinite certificates.
8. In support of his said submission, Mr. Mukherjee referred to and relied on a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Pramatha Nath Mukherjee & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., 70 C.W.N. page 503, wherein an order of requisition under section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (II of 1948) was struck down on the finding that such an order must give sufficient particulars for identification of the land to which the order relates.
9. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that admittedly the plot in question originally belonged to one Shri Prativa Chandra Roy and was directed to vest in the State Government under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, in B. R. Case Nos. 307 and 308 of 1985. The said order of vesting was challenged by the said Pr
