Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee and Subrata Talukdar, JJ.
BRC Construction Company Private Limited and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State of West Bengal and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.L.R.T. No. 353 of 2014 with W.P.L.R.T. No. 142 of 2013
Decided On : 8-4-2015
LAND REFORMS - WEST BENGAL - ACQUISITION OF ESTATES - RETENTION OF LAND - TRANSFERABILITY OF RETAINED LAND - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 6(3) OF WEST BENGAL ESTATES ACQUISITION ACT, 1953 - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 37 OF THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased 6.60 acres of land at Eke Road, Kolkata, from Hindwire Industries Limited (HIL) in 2012. HIL had acquired the land in the 1940s and 1950s and was recorded as a raiyat in the record of rights. The petitioner applied for mutation of the land in his name, but the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer rejected the application, holding that the land was retained by HIL under Section 6(1)(g) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, and was not transferable without the approval of the Land and Land Reforms Department. The petitioner challenged the order before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, which dismissed the petition. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the land was not subject to the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, and that the petitioner was entitled to have his name mutated in the record of rights. The Court held that the land was acquired by HIL prior to the enactment of the Act and that the Act did not affect the rights of non-agricultural tenants. The Court also held that the land was not subject to Section 6(3) of the Act, which provides for the retention of certain categories of lands by intermediaries, as the land was not comprised in a tea garden, mill, factory, or workshop. The Court further held that the transfer of the land from HIL to the petitioner was valid under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Issues: 1. Whether the land was subject to the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953? 2. Whether the land was subject to Section 6(3) of the Act? 3. Whether the transfer of the land from HIL to the petitioner was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The land was not subject to the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, as it was acquired by HIL prior to the enactment of the Act and the Act did not affect the rights of non-agricultural tenants. 2. The land was not subject to Section 6(3) of the Act, as the land was not comprised in a tea garden, mill, factory, or workshop. 3. The transfer of the land from HIL to the petitioner was valid under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed and the petitioner was entitled to have his name mutated in the record of rights.
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.
W.P.L.R.T 353 of 2014 is directed against the judgment and order dated November 05, 2014 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, in O.A No. 2022 of 2014.
2. W.P.L.R.T 142 of 2014 is directed against the judgment and order dated May 16, 2013 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, in O.A No. 1441 of 2013.
3. Since, similar questions of facts and law are involved in both the writ petitions, by consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, we took up the hearing of both the writ petitions simultaneously, to avoid conflicting judicial opinions.
4. However, for the sake of convenience, we first deal with the facts in connection with W.P.L.R.T 353 of 2014.
5. The predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, Hindwire Industries Limited (HIL in short) purchased land, inter alia, 6.60 acres at premises no. 47, Eke Road, Kolkata - 700 115 under Khardah Police Station, by several deeds of conveyance made and executed between the years 1948 to 1952. In course of time, the name of HIL was recorded as a raiyat in the record of rights. HIL was paying the land revenue.
6. HIL in course of its business obtained financial assistance from Allahabad Bank and other financial institutions by mortgaging the entirety of the said premises. However, in the year 1997, HIL filed a reference before the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Such reference abated before the BIFR, as the secured creditors including Allahabad Bank, had taken measures to recover the dues under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act of 2002 in short). In the meanwhile, all the rights, interest and title in the financing documents and all collateral and underlying securities, interest and guarantee were assigned by Allahabad Bank to Assets Reconstruction Company (India) limited (ARCIL in short) which in turn assigned its rights to N.E. Electronics Limited and who further assigned its rights for valuable consideration to Pioneer Prodev Private Limited.
7. Thereafter, by virtue of a deed of conveyance dated June 12, 2012, the petitioner purchased the said premises along with structures buildings, etc., free from all encumbrances for a total consideration of Rs. 14,15,00,000/- (Rupees fourteen crore fifteen lakh) only and, also, free from all charges, liens, mortgage, interest, claim, demand, attachment etc. in terms of a settlement amongst the parties concerned. The petitioner, also, received vacant possession of the property containing an area of 6.60 acres together with factory shed spread over 2000 square feet.
8. Immediately, after purchasing the said premises, the petitioner applied on August 1, 2012 before the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Barrackpore-II for mutation of the land at the said premises (the said application in short) in the prescribed format along with all necessary documents establishing its proof of transfer of the property and, also, contending that the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the property. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Barrackpore-II, also, demanded land revenue and surcharge from HIL by memo no. 412/BLRO/BKP-II dated March 4, 2014 to the tune of Rs. 20,35,572/- for a total area of land measuring 7.36 acres, which included the 6.00 acres of land purchased by HIL for and up to Bengali year 1420.
9. However, since the authorities sat tight over the said application without citing any reason or shortcoming in the mutation application and refused to take any decision thereon, the applicant was constrained to file an application being O.A. 941 of 2014 in the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal and on mentioning requested for early disposal of the same. The learned tribunal, however, disallowed the prayer for early hearing and fixed the next date for hearing of the application on June 13, 2014.
10. Being aggri
AI
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
