Back
2018 Supreme(Cal) 726
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Biswanath Somadder, Arindam Mukherjee, JJ.
State Of West Bengal and Others - Appellants
Vs.
North Frontier Railway and Others - Respondents
C A N No. 1595 of 2018, M A T No. 174 of 2018
Decided On : 29-11-2018
Supratim Dhar, Adv., Kishore Datta, Adv., Debasish Kundu, Adv., Sagar Bandyopadhyay, Adv., Soma Kar Ghosh, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Tenancy Tribunal did not possess the jurisdiction to adjudicate the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition, and the issues of land acquisition and compensation were not maintainable due to the long passage of time and the conduct of the writ petitioners.
Headnote:
West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act - Land Acquisition - Sections 6(3), 2(r) of the Act - The court discussed the ownership and lease of tea garden land under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. The key legal provisions of Sections 6(3) and 2(r) were interpreted to determine the jurisdiction of the court and the authority of the District Magistrate. The court held that the Tenancy Tribunal did not possess the jurisdiction to adjudicate the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition, and the issues of land acquisition and compensation were not maintainable due to the long passage of time and the conduct of the writ petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the ownership and lease of tea garden land under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. The writ petitioners sought various reliefs including release of land, compensation, reduction of lease rent, and renewal of lease deeds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tenancy Tribunal did not possess the jurisdiction to adjudicate the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. It held that the issues of land acquisition and compensation were not maintainable due to the long passage of time and the conduct of the writ petitioners. The court also directed the District Magistrate to rehear the matter regarding the permission for bringing fresh areas of the tea estate under cultivation.
Issues: The main issues included the jurisdiction of the court, constructive res judicata, validity of the District Magistrate's order, and the maintainability of the writ petition. The court also addressed the issue of forcible dispossession and the delay in challenging the dispossession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tenancy Tribunal did not possess the jurisdiction to adjudicate the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. It also held that the issues of land acquisition and compensation were not maintainable due to the long passage of time and the conduct of the writ petitioners. The court emphasized the importance of challenging dispossession within a reasonable period of time.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned order, directed the authority to take steps to takeover the portion of land of the petitioners by exercising due process of law, and extended the time to execute the lease deeds in favor of the petitioners. The court also directed the District Magistrate to rehear the matter regarding the permission for bringing fresh areas of the tea estate under cultivation.
Arindam Mukherjee, J.
1. The facts relating to filing of the writ petition by the respondent nos. 4 and 5, namely, Avijit Tea Company Private Limited and Rajendra Kanodia its director are as follows:-
2. Great Gopalpur Tea Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'GGTCPL') was the owner of Haihai Pathar Tea Estate falling in Mouja- Haihai Pathar -I, Haihai Pathar-II, and Haihai Pathar-III in the district of Jalpaiguri.
3. After the promulgation of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as the said 'Act') the entire land with structures thereon vested in the State.
4. The said GGTCPL under the provisions of Section 6(3) of the said Act was allowed to retain 1029.78 acres of tea garden land in Haihai Pathar-II, and 505.12 acres in Haihai Pathar-III. Out of 1029.78 acres the State Government resumed 52.71 acres and the tea estate was allowed to retain 977.07 acres in Haihai Pathar-II. Thus, the total land allowed to be retained by the tea estate was 1482.14(977.07+505.12) acres. Subsequently, the Government of West Bengal executed two lease deeds in Form-1 (Schedule-F) of the said Act on 25th March, 1976 with effective dates being 20th February, 1967 for 977.07 acres and 24th February, 1967 for 505.12 acres in favour of GGTCPL, both having tenure of 31 years with renewal option. The tea estate comprised in the said land later on came to be known as Rupali Tea Estate. The entire exercise allowing GGTCPL to retain the tea garden and execution of lease are pursuant to an order passed by the State Government under the provision of Section 6(3) of the said Act.
5. By a registered indenture dated 14th October, 1977 the said GGTCPl with the consent of United Bank of India being the mortgagee of the said Rupali Tea Estate transferred the said Rupali Tea Estate with all its assets and liabilities to Kamini Tea Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'KTCPL').
6. Subsequently, KTCPL by a registered indenture dated 18th April, 1979 sold and/or transferred all the land including plantation garden and factories comprised in the said Rupali Tea Estate to Avijit Tea Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'ATCPL') being the writ petitioner no. 1/ respondent no. 4 in the appeal. Pursuant to such transfer ATCPL got its name incorporated in the land revenue record of the said tea garden land by the Collector, Jalpaiguri on 10th June, 1981. The quantum and State of the land transferred to ATCPL is specified in the deed. State Government was not party to any of the transfers inter vivos.
7. Atcpl subsequently got the mortgage released by settling the dues and by making payment thereof to United Bank of India. A memorandum of complete satisfaction of charge with the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal was filed by the said United Bank of India on 15th June, 2001. Prior to expiry of the two lease deeds both of which were for thirty years with renewal option, ATCPL applied for renewal in the year 2001, but the execution of renewal deeds are still pending though the competent authority has taken a decision to renew the lease for a lesser area as stated hereinafter.
8. Out of 1482.19 acres two stretches of land measuring about 51.61 acres and 28.09 acres aggregating to 79.70 acres had been requisitioned by the defence and, subsequently, subjected to acquisition under RAIP Case No. 12/86-87 and Case No. 21/86-87 under the provisions of Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The issue of determination of compensation in respect of the said 79.70 acres of land has been referred to arbitration and is pending.
9. Apart from the said 79.70 acres of further land aggregating to 172.39 acres according to ACTPL has been forcibly taken over by different authorities in following manner:-
North Frontier Railway
117.43
acres
Ministry of Defence
31.92
acr
