Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Debangsu Basak, Md. Shabbar Rashidi, JJ.
The State Of West Bengal And Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
Board Of Trustees For The Port Of Kolkata And Ors. - Respondent
APO 123 of 2020 with IA No. GA 4 of 2022
Decided On : 19-12-2023
Escheat - Property Dispute - West Bengal Escheat Forfeitures Act, 2012, Section 2, 3, 4 - The court discussed the provisions of the West Bengal Escheat Forfeitures Act, 2012 and the two-tier adjudicating process provided under the Act. It highlighted the definition of escheat, the duty of the Collector to send reports to the Competent Authority, and the appeal provisions under the Act. The court emphasized the jurisdiction of the competent authority to decide the existence of escheat and the availability of statutory alternative remedy through appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The State of West Bengal appealed against a judgment setting aside a notice issued under the West Bengal Escheat Forfeitures Act, 2012. The State contended that the competent authority had acted within its jurisdiction, while the Kolkata Port Trust Authorities challenged the order of the competent authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the competent authority had jurisdiction to decide the existence of escheat and that the Kolkata Port Trust Authorities had not availed the statutory right of appeal provided under the Act. It emphasized the availability of statutory alternative remedy and the duty to exhaust the mechanism provided under the Act for resolving disputes.
Issues: The issues involved disputed questions of fact regarding the ownership of immovable properties and the jurisdiction of the competent authority under the Act of 2012. The court also addressed the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the availability of statutory alternative remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision of the competent authority should be tested based on the decision-making process and emphasized the duty to exhaust statutory remedies provided under the Act. It also highlighted that disputed questions of fact should be adjudicated by the competent authority and the appellate authority as per the Act of 2012.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment and order, restoring the decision of the competent authority. It directed the respondent to avail of their remedies under the Act of 2012 if aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority.
JUDGMENT :
Debangsu Basak, J.
1. State of West Bengal as the appellant has assailed a judgement and order dated August 10, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 74 of 2019. By the impugned judgement and order the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and set aside the original notice dated October 25, 2018, and all consequential steps taken thereunder as being foundationally flawed.
2. Learned Assistant Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has referred to the provisions of the West Bengal Escheat Forfeitures Act, 2012 and contended that, the provisions of the Act of 2012 provide for a two tier adjudicating process. At the first tier is the competent authority and at the 2nd tier is the Appellate Authority who both have powers to consider the issue as to whether, the property in question comes within the purview of the Act of 2012 or not.
3. Learned Assistant Additional Advocate General has submitted that, the competent authority under the Act of 2012 issued a notice dated October 5, 2018 in respect of premises No. 68 and 69, Strand Road, Kolkata. He has referred to such notice. He has pointed out that in such notice, the competent authority had acknowledged that, Kolkata Port Trust Authorities is the owner of a portion thereof and that there was no recorded owner for the balance of those 2 premises. Competent authority had initiated an enquiry by such notice which it was entitled to do under the provisions of the Act of 2012. Kolkata Port Trust Authorities had submitted a reply dated October 25, 2018 to the competent authority by which it claimed to be the owner of a part of the 2 premises concerned. It had divided the 2 properties into 3 schedules namely schedule A, B1 and B2. In its reply, Kolkata Port Trust Authorities had stated that, they were not the owner of schedule C. Competent authority had by a letter dated November 26, 2018 asked the Kolkata Port Trust Authorities for title deeds in respect of the portion that it claimed ownership of in respect of the 2 premises. By a letter dated December 19, 2018, Kolkata Port Trust Authorities had submitted title deed dated December 21, 1910. Considering such contentions, the competent authority had passed an order dated January 29, 2019 by which, it divided the 2 premises into 3 lots being Lot A, B1 and B2. It had accepted Kolkata Port Trust Authorities to be the owner in respect of lot A which is the area which, Kolkata Port Trust Authorities had claimed ownership of in respect of the 2 properties. Therefore, according to him, Kolkata Port Trust Authorities had no ground to approach the Writ Court as, competent authority had acted within the jurisdiction prescribed under the Act of 2012 and that, the contentions of Kolkata Port Trust Authorities before the competent authority had been upheld.
4. Learned Assistant Additional Advocate General has contended that, the writ petition raised disputed questions of facts which ideally should be decided by the appellate authority prescribed under the Act of 2012 and not in a summary proceeding as that of a writ petition. He has pointed out that, there were disputes as regards the total area comprised in the 2 premises with Kolkata Port Trust Authorities claiming ownership only in respect of a portion thereof. He has contended that, a Writ Court cannot decide title and should not give a declaration of title. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon 1962 Supp (3) SCR 831 (Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Another), 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306 (State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh and Others), and 2019 (4) SCC 500 (Sarvepalli Ramaiah (dead) as per legal representatives and Others vs. District Collector Chittoor District and Others).
5. Learned Assistant Additional Advocate General has contended that, since, the Act of 2012 provides for an appeal from the order of the competent authority, it is an efficacious statutory remedy available to Kolkata Port trust authorities. In view of efficacious sta
The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the competent authority to decide the existence of escheat and the duty to exhaust statutory remedies provided under the West B....
The court held that leasehold rights are protected and cannot be violated without due process, stating that the property cannot be declared escheated without a legal basis.
The court ruled that the Municipality lacked authority to annul registered exchange deeds without prior governmental approval, and the ADM acted beyond jurisdiction by condoning appeal delays.
One must assess if District Collector would obtain any right in law to declare “Gift Deed” to be invalid or illegal, even assuming that there was any violation of FERA/FEMA, while it was executed.
A suit seeking mere declaration is not maintainable when the State has taken possession of unclaimed property; possession must be requested as per S.42 of the Specific Relief Act.
A claim of adverse possession requires foundational pleading; courts cannot consider arguments raised outside of established pleadings.
A writ petition remains maintainable despite alternative appellate remedies when a tribunal acts in violation of natural justice by ignoring substantive pleadings. Furthermore, a mortgagee cannot enf....
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
