IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

Arijit Banerjee, J.

1. This appeal and the writ petition have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order as they arise from the same set of facts. In the appeal, under challenge is an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the appellants’ writ petition challenging a decision of the Purchase Committee of the Burdwan Municipality was disposed of. In the writ petition, an order of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal is under challenge. By an order dated August 13, 2019, passed in FMA 751 of 2019, a co-ordinate Bench had directed that these two matters be heard together.

2. The appellants in FMA 751 of 2019 and the writ petitioners in WPLRT 76 of 2019, at all material times, owned substantial landed properties in the District of Burdwan, including two plots of land at Palashi and Sadhanpur. The Burdwan Municipality (in short, ‘the Municipality’) owned a plot of land at Nari, Burdwan which the Municipality proposed to use as a dumping ground for the waste products of the Municipality. There was strong public opposition to such proposal as the said plot of land was in the middle of the town. The appellants offered to exchange their land at Palashi with the Nari property of the Municipality. Such exchange took place by execution of registered deeds. The appellants also gifted their plot of land in Sadhanpur to the Municipality. The plot of land at Nari was mutated in the names of the appellants. The plots of land at Palashi and Sadhanpur were mutated in the name of the Municipality.

3. It appears that the Palashi property was partly tenanted and the Municipality also collected rent from such tenants.

4. In the Palashi property the appellants also had a rice mill.

5. Subsequently, the Municipality wanted to get back possession of the Nari property. A meeting of the Purchase Committee of the Municipality was held on March 9, 2017, for taking decision for purchase of the Nari property from the appellants. At the said meeting, the Additional District Magistrate (in short “ADM”) expressed his opinion that transfer of the Palashi property by the appellants in favour of the Municipality was bad in law and void since neither the appellants nor the Municipality had taken requisite permission from the State Government under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.

6. The Committee accepted such opinion of the ADM and resolved that the exchange deal entered into by and between the appellants and the Municipality was null and void. This resolution was challenged by the appellants before a learned Single Judge of this Court by filing WP No. 10679 (W) of 2018 which was disposed of by the learned Judge without interfering with the subject resolution, giving rise to FMA 751 of 2019.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid resolution, appeals were preferred by the Municipality before the ADM being the competent authority against the orders of the Revenue Officer passed in 6 mutation cases, mutating the Nari property in the name of the appellants. The ADM/his delegate allowed such appeal. That order was challenged by the appellants/writ petitioners herein before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (in short “LRTT”) by filing O.A. No. 2587/2017 (LRTT). The Tribunal set aside the order impugned and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. The writ petitioners have challenged such order of the Tribunal by filing WPLRT 76 of 2019.

Case of the Appellants/Writ Petitioners

8. Appearing for the appellants in FMA 751 and the petitioners in WPLRT No. 76 of 2019, Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel, argued the following points:-

(i) The Municipality had no power, authority or jurisdiction to decide that the exchange deal entered into by and between the appellants and the Municipality was bad in law. A statutory authority like the Municipality could not have taken any such decision as the parent statute did not empower the Muni