SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(Cal) 318

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.
Mishri Show – Petitioner
Versus
Belur Nikunjamoyee Gadar Institution & other – Opposite Parties
Civil Rule No. 1578 of 1974
Decided On: April 27, 1978

Advocates appeared:
Bidyut Kumar Banerjee for the Petitioner.
Rameswar Saha for the Opposite Parties.

The user of land at the date of vesting under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act determines its character as agricultural or non-agricultural, and the transfer of a share or portion of a holding does not give rise to a right of preemption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

Headnote:

WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT - SECTION 8 - PREEMPTION - AGRICULTURAL LAND - NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND - USER OF LAND - REVISIONAL SURVEY RECORDS - PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS - TRANSFER OF SHARE OR PORTION OF HOLDING - NO RIGHT OF PREEMPTION - SUMMARY

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner purchased 10 decimals of land from Ram Ashish Singh, who had acquired it from Om Prakash Singh. The applicants, members of a school's managing committee, claimed preemption rights under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, arguing that the land was agricultural. The trial court dismissed their application, finding the land to be non-agricultural, but the lower appellate court reversed this decision.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the lower appellate court erred in its decision. It noted that the Revisional Survey (RS) Records showed that the disputed land was being used for non-agricultural purposes at the date of vesting under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. This raised a presumption that the land was non-agricultural in character, which was not rebutted by the original Cadastral Survey (CS) Khatian.

Issues: 1. Whether the disputed land was agricultural or non-agricultural. 2. Whether the applicants had a right of preemption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the user of the land at the date of vesting under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act determined its character as agricultural or non-agricultural. The RS Records showed that the disputed land was being used for non-agricultural purposes, creating a presumption of its non-agricultural nature. 2. The court further held that the transfer of a share or portion of a holding did not give rise to a right of preemption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the Rule, set aside the order of the lower appellate court, and restored the order of the trial court, dismissing the applicants' application for preemption.

JUDGMENT

Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.

1. This Rule arises out of a proceeding under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The Subject matter of the said proceeding was Dag No. 208/726, Khatian No. 447, Mouza Kumardhi, Police Station Kulti, measuring 10 decimals of land. The applicants, who are opposite parties to this Rule claimed that they were the owners of the contiguous lands. On 26.2.1971 the petitioner had purchased by a registered kobala the said 10 decimals of land in Dag No. 208/726 from one Ram Ashis Singh for a consideration of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only). The learned Munsif dismissed the application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reform Act, inter alia, upon a finding that the land in question was non-agricultural land, therefore, the application for preemption under Section 8 of the Act was not maintainable. The learned Subordinate Judge, Asansol, allowed the appeal of the applicants and granted their prayers for preemption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, inter alia, upon a finding that the land in question was agricultural.

2. In my view, this Rule is bound to succeed for the reasons presently indicated. It was proved that originally the Rays of Belrui were recorded in C.S. Khatian No. 110 as "Madhyasathadhikari" in respect of Dag No. 208. Thereafter, Pranshankar Chakravorty and Nikhil Chandra Chakravorty had taken from them settlement of 10 decimals of land in Dag No. 208. In the finally published R.S. Khatian No. 447 the names of the said two Chakravorty were recorded as Dakhalkar in respect of 10 decimals contained in Bata Dug No. 208/726. In the remarks column the description of the said Bata plot was stated to be Danga. Pranshankar Chakravorty and Nikhil Chandra Chakravorty had sold the said 10 decimals of land to one Om Prokash Singh by a registered kobala dated 12.12.1960. Om Prokash, in his turn, transferred the suit property to Ram Ashish Singh, the vendor of the petitioner on 14.11.1967. It has already been stated that the petitioner has purchased the land in question from the said Ram Ashish Singh on 26.2.1971. The applicants who happened to be the members of a Managing Committee of a School were recorded in a separate R.S. Khatian in respect of the remaining portion of original C.S. Dag No. 208, but their status was recorded as agricultural tenants.

3. In my view, the lower appellate court committed a jurisdictional error by over-looking the consequences of the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act coming into force. It is true that before the vesting the purpose of the letting and not the user of a particular land was the sure criterion for determination of the nature of a tenancy. Before the commencement of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act it was the settled law that if the main lease was governed by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, then it must be held that all sub-leases of portions of the properties included in the said main lease would be deemed to be agricultural leases. The earliest decision on the point was Baburam Roy vs. Mohendra Nath Samanta, (1904) 8 CWN 454. A long series of decisions re-affirmed this principle that the nature of the original tenancy and not the character of the parcel included in the sub-tenancy would determine whether the sub-tenancy was to be governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act or the Transfer of Property Act. The Supreme Court in Nirshi Dhobin vs. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mukherjee, AIR 1969 SC 864, declined to re-open the said question be cause the above rule laid down in Baburam Roy vs. Mohendra Nath Samanta case (supra) had become stare decisis.

4. But the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act brought about a material change in the legal position. Clauses (b) and (j) of Section 2 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act defined the expressions agricultural land and non-agricultural land solely with reference to the user of the particular lands. A land ordinarily used for purposes of




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top