Back
2025 Supreme(Cal) 920
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, UDAY KUMAR, JJ.
Ramchandra Sutradhar and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Others – Respondents
W.P.L.R.T. No. 111 of 2023, CAN No. 1 of 2023
Decided On : 09-09-2025
For the Appellants : Mrinal Kanti Ghosh, Chandranath Sarkar
For the Respondents: Arup Krishna Das, Rajarshi Ghosh, Abdus Salam, Supratim Dhar, Tuli Sinha
A person cannot qualify as an 'occupier' under the West Bengal Act if they own another property, thus impacting their eligibility for land vesting as intended by the legislation for marginalized individuals.
Headnote:(A) West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975 - Section 4 and Section 2(f) - Vesting of land - The court examined whether the devolution of property upon the death of an ancestor affects the vesting rights of the artisan occupier under the Act - Conclusively ruled that an artisan who holds other property does not qualify as an 'occupier' for the purposes of the Act, thereby legitimizing the Tribunal's decision - The principle of law established that ownership in another property disqualifies one from being considered an artisan under the legislation intended to support landless individuals. (Paras 16-25)
Facts of the case:
The challenge was against a Tribunal's ruling declaring the vesting of land in the petitioners' mother illegal, based on her claimed ownership of ancestral property and the definition of 'occupier' under the Act.
Findings of Court:
The learned Tribunal correctly adjudicated that the vesting was illegal, as the petitioners’ mother was deemed to be a co-owner of other land, and as such, lacked eligibility under the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the inheritance of another property affects the qualification of an artisan as an occupier under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that ownership of any property precludes designation as an 'occupier' under the Act, emphasizing the importance of strictly adhering to statutory definitions to protect the rights of legitimate entitlements.
Result: W.P.L.R.T. No. 111 of 2023 is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legacy of a deceased party allows continuance in legal proceedings (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. details of the land vesting and its legal challenges (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments regarding the original ownership challenges and rights of the parties (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. analysis of statutory definitions and their implications on land vesting (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. conclusion in favor of upholding the tribunal's decision (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.
1. CAN 1 of 2023 is an application by the heirs and legal representatives of the respondent no. 6 in the original application, namely Lakshmi Sutradhar, who died after the passing of the judgment impugned in the present writ petition, seeking leave to present the present writ petition.
2. In view of the said heirs having stepped into the shoes of the respondent no. 6, such leave is granted.
3. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2023 is disposed of by granting the heirs and legal representatives of the respondent no. 6 in the original application to proceed with the present writ petition.
4. Since the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 6 are the writ petitioners themselves, no further order need be passed for rectification of the cause title of the writ petition.
5. In view of appearance on behalf of the respondents through counsel, service of notice of appeal on the respondents is dispensed with.
6. The present challenge has been preferred against an order of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal whereby the original application filed by the private respondent was allowed, thereby holding that the vesting of the land in dispute in favour of the mother of the present writ petitioners under Section 4 of the WEST BENGAL ACQUISITION OF HOMESTEAD LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS, ARTISANS AND FISHERMEN ACT , 1975 was illegal.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a checkered history to the matter.
8. Initially, the land in question was vested in favour of the petitioners’ mother. Subsequently, however, such vesting was challenged by the original owners, being the private respondent, by way of an application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal having adjudicated the same, such adjudication was challenged in a writ petition. The writ court relegated the matter to the Collector.
9. Upon such relegation, the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer adjudicated the issue. Thereafter, the matter went up to the Tribunal which held that on the relevant date, it was the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, and not the B.L. & L.R.O. who was the ‘Collector’ under the 1975 Act. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the D.L. & L.R.O. for adjudication.
10. It is submitted that the D.L. & L.R.O. turned down the challenge of the private respondents, which was upset by the Tribunal.
11. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that the mother of the present writ petitioners, being an artisan and an occupier of the disputed land on the appointed date as per the 1975 Act, that is, on June 26, 1975, the learned Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in setting aside such vesting. It is argued that the Tribunal proceeded primarily on the premise that a property belonging to the deceased husband of the writ petitioners’ mother (that is, the writ petitioners’ father) devolved upon their mother only on the demise of their father, which happened after June 26, 1975. It is argued that once a land was vested under Section 4 of the 1975 Act, the same could not be divested by taking into account subsequent acquisition of property by the occupier by way of inheritance from her husband.
12. Learned counsel further submits that one of the premises of challenge by the private respondents was that the mother of the writ petitioners, the occupier, also became entitled to a portion of an ancestral property on the demise of her father, along with her three brothers. However,
