Acquisition of land does not amount to transfer within the meaning of Section 14 T (3) and 14 U of the Act of 1955.

JUDGMENT :

(Debangsu Basak, J.) :

1. Writ petitioners have assailed the order dated December 8, 2022 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in OA No. 2654 of 2017.

2. Before the tribunal, the writ petitioners had questioned the legality, validity and proprietary of the order dated June 15, 2017 passed by the appellate authority in connection with an appeal arising out of order dated August 4, 2016 passed by the prescribed authority exercising jurisdiction under Section 14 T (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

3. By the impugned order, the tribunal had found the writ petitioners to be pre-vesting purchasers. The tribunal had held that the acquisition of land was a form of transfer and therefore the authorities correctly invoked Section 14 T (3) of the Act of 1955 and that the writ petitioners were not entitled to challenge the vesting proceedings and were not entitled to any benefit under Section 14 U (3) of the Act of 1955. The tribunal however had granted liberty to the writ petitioners to apply for benefits under Section 14 U (3) of the Act of 1955 before the appellate authority within the time specified therein.

4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has submitted that, the writ petitioners were added as party respondents to the vesting proceedings by an order dated July 21, 2015 as pre-vesting purchasers in respect of the land which was involved in the proceedings. The writ petitioners had purchased the land in question in the year 1995 before the vesting proceedings started on March 18, 1996 and the final vesting order being made on August 4, 2016.

5. Relying upon 82 Calcutta Weekly Notes 743 (the State of West Bengal versus Nimai Chand Kundu) and All India Reporter 1981 Calcutta 138 (Jayanta Kumar Banerjee versus The State of West Bengal and Others) learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has contended that, as prior purchasers, the writ petitioners have right and interest in the land to challenge the vesting orders.

6. Relying upon All India Reporter 1963 Supreme Court 1638 (Tilakayat Shri Gouindlalji Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has contended that, acquisition does not amount to transfer. Acquisition had taken place due to operation of law and does not come within the purview of Section 14 U (1) of the Act of 1955 which talks about transfer by sale/gift or otherwise of partition of any land.

7. Moreover, according to the learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioners, in case of transfer of excess land over the ceiling by the big raiyat prior permission has to be taken from the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer but prior permission is not required for acquisition of land by application of law. According to him, the respondents had wrongly invoked Section 14 T (3) and Section 14 U (1) of the Act of 1955 in starting a vesting proceeding. In order to trigger Section 14 T (3) of the Act of 1955, there has to be excess of the ceiling limit which is a maximum of 24.22 acres for the big raiyat, the land being non-agricultural, there must be a transfer within the meaning of Section 14 U read with Section 14 T (3) in order to start a vesting proceeding. He has submitted that, the vesting proceedings were illegal and ultra vires the statute. In support of such contention, he has relied upon 86 Calcutta Weekly Notes to 38 (Durgesh Kumari Devi versus Bimal Kumar Jharjharia and others).

8. Learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has contended that Chapter II B of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendments) Act, 1981 came into force on March 24, 1986. Such Act had specified the date of vesting to be February 15, 1971 in respect of agricultural land and Homestead. Such Act had specified the date of vesting of non-agricultural land to be on September 9, 1980. According to him, since the big raiyat had transferred the agricultural land before August 7, 1969 it shou