Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Before Mr. Justice Satyabrata Sinha and Mr. Justice Pratap Kumar Ray
Mrinal Kanti Pal & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. -Opposite Parties
W. B. L. R. T. No. 737 of 2000
Decision December 5, 2000
WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT - SECTION 14T(3), 14T(5), 14T(8), 14T(9) - REOPENING OF VESTING ORDER - CONSTITUTIONALITY - REVIEW OF EARLIER ACTIONS - STATUS QUO ORDER - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - REJECTION OF WRIT PETITION - SUMMARY OF COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - KEY LEGAL POINT(S) - CATEGORIZATION OF JUDGEMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners challenged an order of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal directing the Revenue Officer to dispose of proceedings under Sections 14T(3) and 14T(5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, initiated to determine the ceiling limit of landholdings. The petitioners claimed that the Revenue Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the matter as it was previously decided in a title suit, and that the provisions of Sections 14T(5)(6)(7) and (8) of the Act were unreasonable and unconstitutional.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Revenue Officer had jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under Sections 14T(3) and 14T(5) of the Act, as the judgment and decree in the title suit did not bar such proceedings. The court also held that the provisions of Sections 14T(5)(6)(7) and (8) of the Act were not unreasonable or unconstitutional, as they had been upheld by previous Division Bench judgments of the court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Revenue Officer had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Sections 14T(3) and 14T(5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, despite the judgment and decree in the title suit? 2. Whether the provisions of Sections 14T(5)(6)(7) and (8) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, were unreasonable or unconstitutional?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Revenue Officer had jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under Sections 14T(3) and 14T(5) of the Act, as the judgment and decree in the title suit did not bar such proceedings. The court noted that the judgment and decree in the title suit specifically stated that the decree would be subject to statutory changes envisaged in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. 2. The court held that the provisions of Sections 14T(5)(6)(7) and (8) of the Act were not unreasonable or unconstitutional, as they had been upheld by previous Division Bench judgments of the court. The court noted that the Division Bench judgments had considered all the arguments against the validity of the provisions and had found them to be without merit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition with costs, holding that the impugned order of the Tribunal was valid and that the Revenue Officer had jurisdiction to proceed with the pending proceedings under Sections 14T(3) and 14T(5) of the Act.
Ray, J.:
1. This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 29th May, 2000, passed by West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in connection with O. A. No. 4711 20001 LRTT, whereby and whereunder direction was given to the Revenue Officer concerned to dispose of the proceedings under Section 14 T (3) read with Sec. 14C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, registered as case No 9/7AA/SUO/2010, as well as the subsequent proceeding being case No. 10/2000 under Section 14T(5) read with Section 14T(9) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, being the offshoot of the main proceeding upon giving opportunity of hearing to all the applicants and other legal heirs of deceased Radha Raman Pal.
2. In this writ application, petitioners has assailed the said order of learned Tribunal and prayed the following reliefs :
(a) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, their men and agents from giving any effect or further effect to the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms ( Third) Amendment Act, 1986.
(b) Issue a further writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent their men and agents not to give any effect or proceed further in respect of the Notice being AnnexureP/3 to the writ petition after set aside the order of Hon'ble Tribunal dated 29.5.2000.
(c) Rule nisi in terms of Prayers (a) & (b).
(d) Ad-interim order of Injunction directing the respondents not to give any effect or further effect in view of the notice being Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition and not to disturb the petitioners peaceful possession of the petitioners' Cultivation of their lands till the disposal of the writ petition.
(e) Pass such other or further order or orders which Their Lordships may deem fit and proper.
3. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for respective parties.
The case of the writ petitioner as follows .:-
One Radha Raman Pal since deceased gifted most of his properties to his major sons and daughters by registered deed of gift, sometime in the year 1967 and thereby is land properties came within the ceiling limit being 7.75 acres land including homestead. The present writ petitioners and their sisters in terms of the aforesaid deed of gift, being in possession are enjoying the usufructs therefrom upon mutation of their names and payments of the rent to the Government and thereby have been the direct tenant under the State of West Bengal. A Big Raiyats case bearing No. 251/69 was started against Radha Raman Pal and some properties were vested. Assailing the said order of vesting in the Big Raiyat case, Radha Raman Pal, since deceased filed the title suit No. 83/4/40 of 72/72/70 before the competent Court and a judgment and decree was passed by the learned Court of Subordinate Judge, Burdwan on 25th day of July, 1972 in the aforesaid suit upon decreeing the suit on contest on declaring that the order of Big Raiyat case was invalid, illegal and ultra vires and not binding upon the plaintiff and plaintiff was entitled to retain Schedules A, Band C lands of the said suit.
4. Radha Raman Pal breathed last on the 21st November, 1984 and the retained lands of the Radha Raman Pal, and lands in terms of the said title suit came to the hands of the petitioners and their sisters as per Hindu Law of Succession and the instruments respectively, they are enjoying the usufructs upon having possession of the said land on proper mutation and payments of the taxes to the State of West Bengal. A notice under Section 14T (3) read with Section 14C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 being case No. 9/7AA/SUO/2000 dated 19th January, 2000 was issued to the writ petitioner No.1, Sri Mrinal Kanti Pal asking him to file return on behalf of his deceased father under form No. 7AA. On 28th January, 2000, writ petitioner No.2, Tushar Kanti Pal appeared for himself and the other legal heirs and prayed adjournment of hearing with prayer to issue notices to all the legal heirs.
5. The concerned Revenue Officer staye
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
