Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 496
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.
Anukul Mondal – Appellant
Versus
Purna Chandra Mondal, since deceased, rep. by Smt. Monirani Mondal & Ors. – Respondents
SA 381 of 2010
Decided on : 20-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Roy Chowdhury Ms. Anindita Roy Chowdhury
For the Respondents: Mr. Anjan Roy Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury Mr. Souvanik Mahapatra
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975, possession must be lawful, and the failure to establish legal rights may result in eviction.
Headnote:
PATTA - West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975 - Section 4, Section 38 - The court discussed the provisions of the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975, particularly focusing on the conferment of title (PATTA) under section 4 and the conditions for granting a perpetual injunction under section 38. The interpretation of the Act influenced the court's decision regarding the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession and permissive possession, as well as the defendant's right to evict the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed possession of a property under the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975. The defendants sought eviction of the plaintiff, alleging permissive possession and revocation of license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove adverse possession and accepted permissive possession. The court held that the defendants were entitled to evict the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree of the lower court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the plaintiff's claim of possession under the Act of 1975, the defendants' counter claim for eviction, and the jurisdiction of the appellate tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the plaintiff's failure to establish legal rights in the property, acceptance of permissive possession, and the lack of violation of legal rights by the defendants.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree of the lower court in favor of the defendants.
JUDGMENT :
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 10th September, 2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bongaon in T.A. No. 1 of 2009. By the impugned judgment learned court below has set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2008 and 05.12.2008 respectively, passed in T.S. No. 18 of 2001 by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Divison) Bongaon.
2. Plaintiff’s case as set out in the plaint, in brief, is that the plaintiff/appellant herein Anukul Mondal is living in the suit property after raising construction thereon since 1966. He filed one beneficiary case no. 137 of 1986 in respect of the suit property for allotting the said property in his favour under the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975 (Act of 1975). The Junior Land Reforms Officer, Government of West Bengal issued PATTA (conferment of title) in his favour in respect of the suit property.
3. Being aggrieved by that order the respondent herein/defendants preferred appeal being Appeal case no. 23 of 1998 before Sub-Divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer (hereinafter called as ‘SDL&LRO’), Bongaon and the said authority after hearing the Appeal, by an order dated 22.12.2000 was pleased to set aside the order which was passed in favour of the plaintiff/appellant in the aforesaid beneficiary case no. 137 of 1986. Plaintiff further alleged in the plaint that taking advantage of the said order dated 22.12.2000, the defendant/respondents started threatening the plaintiff to dispossess on and from 03.02.2001 and for which the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit being T.S. No. 18 of 2001.
4. The respondents/defendants appeared in the said suit and filed written statement along with a counter claim. The defendant denied all material averments made in the plaint and contended that in view of final result passed in aforesaid appeal by the SDL & LRO, Bongaon on 22.12.2000, plaintiff Anukul Mondal is not entitled to come under the purview of the West Bengal Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisan and Fishermen Act, 1975, nor he can claim the ownership of the suit land as homestead beneficiary. The defendant accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit but in his pleading he has also set up a counter claim for a decree of plaintiff’s eviction from the suit property on the ground that plaintiff’s possession in the suit property on the basis of licence, had already been revoked.
5. Defendants specific case in his pleading is that there was total 11 decimal of land in the suit plot, which originally belonged to one Sibarani Mondal and before her demise she sold .03 decimal of land from the suit plot to the elder brother of plaintiff i.e. one Arabinda Mondal and she also sold .06 decimal to one Pramod Mondal and had gifted rest .02 decimal of land to the defendant no.1 of the suit in 1986. Said two decimal of land was lying vacant and the defendant no. 1 was then working in West Bengal police. He took retirement from the service in 1988. In that year the plaintiff approached before the defendant no. 1 and expressed his intention that he may be permitted to construct a temporary room upon the vacant land i.e. over the suit property, which could be used for conducting social programmes and also assured the defendant no. 1, whenever he will be told he will leave the place and plaintiff being the nephew of the defendant no. 1, out of love and affection, defendant no. 1 gave the required permission in 1988. But the plaintiff managed to get order under the aforesaid beneficiary case and in the year 1997 defendant no. 1 came to know that the plaintiff has constructed the room over the suit property in 1996. Accordingly, defendant filed aforesaid Appeal being Appeal case no. 23 of 1998 and he succeeded in the appeal and thereby plaintiff’s PATTA granted under the Act of 1975 was revoked.
6. Thereafter, on 01.01.2001 defendant has revo
