Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 1576
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.
Sri Sanatan Hazra & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Sri Sankar Narayan Mal – Respondent
SA No. 55 of 2018, I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2017 (Old No. CAN 2475 of 2017)
Decided On : 18-10-2023
For the Appellants : Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty, Adv., Ms. Anjana Das, Adv., Mr. Bikramjit Mandal, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Bhakti Prasad Das, Adv.
Title to land vests automatically under Section 4 of the Act without the need for formal confirmation documents, contradicting the appellate court's interpretation of necessary documentation.
Headnote:(A) West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975 - Section 4; Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Legal title and possession - Appellants were legal heirs of landless ancestor who held land under the Act - Trial Court decreed suit in favor of plaintiffs based on occupancy rights, which was reversed by Appellate Court for lack of formal documentation of title - Court found that title vests by operation of law without need for formal confirmation, thus reversing the appellate judgment. (Paras 12, 13, 37, 39)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs claimed land rights through their predecessor, asserting vesting under the 1975 Act and possession since before 1975. Defendants challenged plaintiffs' title claiming erroneous registry.
Findings of Court:
The Court agreed that title vests automatically under Section 4 and annulled the Appellate Court’s ruling declining title.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Court erred in not recognizing automatic title vesting and the significance of documentary evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Acquisition under Section 4 confers title automatically; Rule 8 does not negate the existing rights by requiring formal title documents.
Result: Appeal allowed, original judgment restored.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the ownership and occupancy of the suit properties under the relevant act. (Para 1) |
| 2. description of property ownership and occupation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. contentions of the defendants regarding title. (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. trial court's findings and decree. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. appellant's arguments on title and proceedings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. respondent's arguments on maintainability. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 7. legal interpretation of the act and rules. (Para 23 , 24 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. clarification on the necessity of documentation for title conferment. (Para 27) |
| 9. conferment of title through operation of law. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 10. court's reasoning and conclusion on errors of law. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 11. final decision to restore trial court's decree. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
1. By filing the instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and decree dated August 28, 2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tamluk in Title Appeal No. 34 of 2003 arising out of judgment and decree dated May 13, 2003 passed by learned First Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tamluk in Title Suit No. 157 of 1999.
2. It was the case of the plaintiff/appellant that the suit properties were under occupation of one Patit Paban Hazra. The said Patit Paban Hazra was a landless person and was in possession of the suit properties from before 1975. The said land, being in occupation of the said Patit Paban Hazra, vested into the State in terms of the provisions of West Bengal Acquisition Of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975.
3. Upon such vesting, the suit properties were settled in favour of Patit Paban Hazra by the competent authorities under the said Act of 1975. During such possession of the suit properties, Patit Paban Hazra died. The plaintiffs/appellants being legal heirs of Patit Paban Hazra inherited the suit properties and have possessed the same to the knowledge of all concerned.
4. The suit properties appertained to RS plot No. 323 measuring 64 decimals. In the LR settlement, 5 decimals out of the said 64 decimals in plot No. 323, upon vesting under the Act of 1975, were recorded in the name of the legal heirs of Patit Paban Hazra under LR Plot No. 323/3494. The remaining 59 decimals therein were recorded as original LR plot No. 323.
5. It was further case of the plaintiff/appellant that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff had residential house in the aforesaid 5 decimals. On the death of the predecessor-in-interest, the ‘chitebera’ construction over the said plot was demolished, for which, the plaintiff/appellants constructed a new house in the land which has been acquired by them by virtue of purchase, gift and exchange. It was further stated that though, there was no structure standing on the property but the plaintiffs/appellants have been in possession of 15 decimals in the plot by growing crops thereon. Besides, the plaintiffs also had residential house, tank and trees over the non-suited plot No. 323.
6. It was further case of the plaintiff/appellants that in order to grab the suit property, the defendants/respondents stacked bricks, sands etc. over the suit property. When the plaintiffs/ appellants raised objection, the respondents/defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit properties on September 18, 1989. They also gave out to construct a residential house over the suit properties having no manner, right, title and interest over it.
7. On the other hand, the respondent/defendants came up with a case that Plot No. 323 measuring 64 decimals was recorded in the name of Gobind Bar and Amar Bar in the Cadestral Survey Record of Rights (CSROR). In the RS ROR, the aforesaid 64 decimals came to be recorded under RS khatian No. 217 and 218 in the name of Anudhwaj Bar and others. In RS khatian No. 218, the name of Patit Paban Hazra, the predecessor of the plaintiff /appellant, was
