Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.
In re: Sambhunath Pal
Vs.
State of West Bengal & ors.
Decided On : April 4, 1983
LAND REFORMS - Ceiling on Holdings - Revenue Officer's Jurisdiction - Benami Transfers - Bona Fide Transfers - Life Estate - Interpretation of Relevant Provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the orders of the Revenue Officer and Additional District Magistrate determining the ceiling area of his land under Chapter-IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956. The petitioner claimed that the Revenue Officer lacked jurisdiction to decide the bona fide of transfers made before 7th August 1969 and to consider lands held by a life estate holder in calculating the ceiling area.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Revenue Officer does not have implied power to decide questions of benami ownership and the bona fide of transfers made prior to 7th August 1969 while determining the extent of land vesting in the State under Section 14S of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956. 2. The definition of "family" under Section 14K(c) of the Act deems an adult son holding land as a raiyat to not be a member of the family, and such son is entitled to retain his own lands up to the prescribed ceiling. 3. The Revenue Officer's jurisdiction is limited to determining the total area of agricultural land 'held' or 'owned' by a raiyat, based on entries in a finally published record, registered deeds, and court decisions binding upon the State, and does not extend to adjudicating complicated questions of title and possession. 4. The Revenue Officer's decision to take into consideration the lands held by Lichu Bala, who had a life estate, in calculating the petitioner's ceiling area was erroneous, as a person with a life estate is considered the owner for the purpose of calculating the ceiling area. 5. The orders of the Revenue Officer and Additional District Magistrate were vitiated by jurisdictional errors, including reliance on an enquiry report conducted without the petitioner's knowledge, placing the burden of proof on the petitioner to establish the genuineness of a gift, and failing to consider purchases made by Sachi from third parties.
Issues: 1. Does the Revenue Officer have jurisdiction to decide the bona fide of transfers made prior to 7th August 1969 while determining the extent of land vesting in the State under Section 14S of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956? 2. Can the Revenue Officer consider lands held by a life estate holder in calculating the ceiling area under Section 14S of the Act? 3. Did the Revenue Officer and Additional District Magistrate commit jurisdictional errors in their decisions?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956 does not contain any express provision conferring authority or jurisdiction upon the Revenue Officer to determine whether a raiyat is the real owner of any agricultural land which stands in the name of his adult son or any other person. Impliedly granting such power would alter or add to the provisions of Sections 14K(1) and 14P of the Act, which are deeming provisions and cannot be expanded beyond their actual wording. 2. The definition of "family" under Section 14K(c) of the Act clearly excludes an adult son holding land as a raiyat from being considered a member of the family, and such son is entitled to retain his own lands up to the prescribed ceiling. 3. The Revenue Officer's jurisdiction is limited to determining the total area of agricultural land 'held' or 'owned' by a raiyat, based on entries in a finally published record, registered deeds, and court decisions binding upon the State. The Revenue Officer is not vested with the power to adjudicate complicated questions of title and to undertake enquiries into the bona fide of transfers made on or before 7th August 1969. 4. A person with a life estate is considered the owner for the purpose of calculating the ceiling area under Section 14S of the Act. The Revenue Officer erred in taking into consideration the lands held by Lichu Bala, who had a life estate, in calculating the petitioner's ceiling area. 5. The Revenue Officer and Additional District Magistrate committed jurisdictional errors in their decisions, including reliance on an enquiry report conducted without the petitioner's knowledge, placing the burden of proof on the petitioner to establish the genuineness of a gift, and failing to consider purchases made by Sachi from third parties.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Officer and Additional District Magistrate and remitted the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Revenue Officer was directed to exclude lands owned by Sachi and lands in respect of which Lichu Bala had a life estate in determining the ceiling area. The Court also clarified that the question of whether the petitioner was the real owner and his son Sachi was his benamdar in respect of the lands standing in the latter's name was left open for adjudication in any other suit or proceeding, according to law.
Being aggrieved by the order of the Additional District Magistrate (L.R.), Midnapore dismissing his appeal preferred against an order of the Revenue Officer, Garhbeta under S 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, the petitioner filed this Writ application. Notices have been served upon the respondents and they have appeared to oppose the application.
2. Two principal questions arise for determination. While conducting a proceeding under S. 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, whether the Revenue Officer has any jurisdiction to decide the bona fides of a transfer made before 7th August, 1969. In other words, can the Revenue Officer lawfully determine whether a transfer made by a raiyat on 7th August, 1969 or an any earlier date was a benami transaction and also can he enquire as to whether a land purchased from a third party prior to 7th August, 1969 in the name of his son was really made on behalf of the raiyat himself. Second point is when another person has a life interest in a plot of land and the raiyat has a vested remainder therein, whether for the purposes of S. 14S and 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, the raiyat, who has only vested remainder, can be considered as owning the said land which is in possession of a holder of life estate.
3. The petitioner has alleged that by two registered deeds respectively dated 29th September, 1950 and 2nd August, 1950 he had gifted life estate in favour of his brother's widow, Lichu Bala, in respect of 82 decimals and 95 decimals of land, After Lichu Bala's death, the said properties are to revert back to the petitioner. On 7th August, 1969 Lichu Bala was alive, and she is still alive. According to the petitioner, Lichu Bala continues to be in possession of the properties gifted to her for life and during R.S. operations the said land had been recorded in her name.
4. On 7th August, 1964 the petitioner by the registered deed had gifted away about 8.98 acres of agriculture land of his four sons, Sachi, Sarasi, Bansi and Tapan. Each brother thereby obtained 2.24 acres of land. On the said date of the execution of the said deed, all the donees were minors Sachi who was born on 8th April, 1947 had attained majority before 15th February, 1971. Before, 7th August, 1961 Sachi, the eldest son of the petitioner, by registered Kobalas had purchased in his own name 3.83 acres of land from third party vendors. On 15th February 1971 the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 come into force. On the said date, according to the petitioner, his family consisted of ten persons. Sachi, the eldest son of petitioner had attained majority before 7th August, 1969 and he was holding about 6.07 acres of land. He was not a member of the petitioner’s family within the meaning of S. 14K clause (c) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The petitioner had alleged that he owned about 14.74 acres of non-irrigated land. But the Revenue Officer had held that the petitioner’s land were irrigated land. I do not propose to decide this question because I have decided to remit the case for fresh adjudication. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise the said question at the time of the re-hearing of the matter.
5. The petitioner who claimed that the land owned by him and his family was below the ceiling area did not submit any return under S. 14S of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956. The Revenue Officer, Centralised Camp, Garhbeta himself started Case No. 36 of 1980 under S. 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, inter alia by taking into consideration the area of land held by Sachi, major son of the petitioner and the land held by Lichu Bala and holding that the petitioner and his family owned land in excess of the prescribed ceiling. On 17th July, 1980 the Revenue Officer rejected the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for adjournment and ex parte disposed of the case. The Revenue Officer purported to rely upon a local enquiry report and had that the petitioner
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
