Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Harish Tandon, Shampa Dutt Paul, JJ.
Sudarshan Kamila & Ors - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Others - Respondent
WPLRT 10 of 2022 And WPLRT 11 of 2022
Decided On : 24-06-2022
Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal - Property Dispute - WBLRTT Act, 1997, Section 10, Section 6 - The judgment discusses the correction of records of right and removal of erroneous vesting in a property dispute. It highlights the legal principle that co-sharers have the same rights in a property, and compliance with court orders should apply uniformly to all co-sharers. The court sets aside the tribunal's decision and directs the correction of records for the petitioners' share in the property.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a property dispute where the petitioners, legal heirs of Satish Chandra Kamila and Jagadish Chandra Kamila, sought correction of records of right and removal of erroneous vesting in their 1/3 share of the property. The tribunal dismissed the contempt applications, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tribunal failed to consider the petitioners' case and directed the correction of records for the petitioners' share in the property, as compliance with court orders should apply uniformly to all co-sharers.
Issues: The issues revolved around the tribunal's dismissal of the contempt applications and the petitioners' right to correction of records and removal of erroneous vesting in their share of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that co-sharers have the same rights in a property, and compliance with court orders should apply uniformly to all co-sharers. The tribunal's failure to consider the petitioners' case and protect their rights led to the setting aside of its decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the tribunal's decision, and directed the correction of records for the petitioners' share in the property.
JUDGMENT
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - As the dispute involved in both the appeals are similar and in respect of the same property, both the appeals being no. WPLRT 10 of 2022 and WPLRT 11 of 2022 are taken up for disposal together. These are appeals against order dated 29.01.2021 passed in O.A.- 2731/09 (MA-777/2010) (LRTT) and O.A.-2732/09 (MA-778/2010) (LRTT) by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, wherein the Ld. Tribunal in the said contempt applications, on considering the matter on record, including order dated 21.05.2010 in Misc. Case no. 03 of 2010 passed by the contemnor and on hearing the contemnor B.L. & L.R.O. Khejuri-I, District Purba Midnapore, was pleased to dismiss the contempt petitions in both the cases.
2. It was the case of the writ petitioners before the Tribunal that in spite of being informed with the said order and on hearing the matter at length, the contemnor did not do anything and as such the contempt petition was filed against the contemnor for willfully and deliberately violating the order dated 05.02.2010, passed in O.A. no. 2731/2009 and O.A. no. 2732/2009.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they have right, title and interest in the case land equivalent to that of Kshitish Chandra Kamila who in terms of order of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in connection with WPLRT no. 545 of 2001 got the benefit of correction of records and orders of vesting removed.
4. The Tribunal vide orders dated 05.02.2010 in both the cases had directed the B.L. & L.R.O. Khejuri-I, to treat the O.A.'s as representations of the applicants and to dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to all concerned, within six month.
5. The Tribunal then considered the compliance report submitted by the contemnor, wherein the contemnor had disposed of the representations, which were the O.A. applications before the Tribunal and ordered that the finally published ROR will remain unchanged.
6. The Ld. Tribunal held that as the contemnor B.L. & L.R.O. Khejuri-I, disposed of the representation as directed by the Tribunal within a period of six months, there was no scope for the Tribunal to give any relief to the applicants by going into the merit of the order passed by the contemnor in Misc. Case no. 03 of 2010. The aggrieved parties were given liberty to file appropriate proceedings for fresh cause of action. The Ld. Tribunal finally dismissed the contempt proceedings in both the cases.
7. The cases before this Court are against the said orders of the Tribunal dated 29.01.2021.
8. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the writ petitioners in WPLRT 10 of 2022 are the legal heirs of Late Satish Chandra Kamila and Ors and the writ petitioners in WPLRT 11 of 2022 are the legal heirs of Jagadish Chandra Kamila & Ors. Kshitish, Satish and Jagadish are all the sons of the original owner Mahendra Nath Kamila and they all inherited 1/3 share in the same property.
9. It is submitted by the writ petitioners herein, that 1/3 share of the inherited property in respect of Kshitish Chandra Kamila, the writ petitioner in WPLRT no. 545 of 2001 has been corrected and recorded in his name as 'Raiyat' in the LR settlement ROR by deleting and removing all errors, free from all encumbrances and peaceful physical absolute possession was given to the said Kshitish Chandra Kamila by the B.L. & L.R.O. Khejuri-I, vide order dated 14.02.2005 passed in Misc. Case no. 45/2003 in compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble Court.
10. The writ petitioners in WPLRT 10/2022 and WPLRT 11/2022 are the legal heirs of Satish Chandra Kamila and Jagadish Chandra Kamila, who were respondent no. 17 & 16 respectively in WPLRT 545 of 2001.
11. But the shares in the said property to the extent of 1/3 share in respect of the other two legal heirs of Mahendra Nath Kamila being Jagadish Chandra Kamila and Satish Chandra Kamila was not recorded.
12. The writ petitioners herein then filed O.A. 2731 of 2009 and O.A. 27
Uniform application of court orders to all co-sharers in a property dispute.
The SDL & LRO retains jurisdiction under specific sections to adjudicate land retention, while previous unchallenged orders attain finality, limiting reopening unless jurisdictional flaws are proven.
The court established that khatedari rights must be respected and that revenue authorities must maintain accurate records without unjustified alterations.
Settlement authorities cannot alter confirmed land assignments without legal basis, emphasizing the need to respect prior land grants and judicial confirmations.
The court emphasized the importance of valid ownership rights and the finality of adjudication in land ownership disputes.
An order made without jurisdiction is null and void, reinforcing the established property rights in land ownership disputes under the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.
(1) Suit not barred under the proviso to under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.(2) Appellants cannot challenge the said finding of the trial court and urge that the compromise petition was lega....
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
