Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, UDAY KUMAR
Haradhan Puitandy – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , J.
1. Affidavit of service filed today be kept on record.
2. The brief backdrop of the present challenge is as follows:
3. The names of one Gopeshwar and one Kapileswar were recorded as joint owners of the disputed plot in the C.S. Records of Rights. The present writ petitioners claim through three sons of Gopeshwar, namely Bisheswar, Anadi and Dukhaharan whereas another son Kashinath apparently left no heirs.
4. As per the writ petitioners’ case, the writ petitioners inherited the property of Gopeshwar through their respective fathers.
5. On the other hand, it transpires that in the R.S. Records of Rights, at least since the year 1959, the name of one Pashan Bala, which initially appeared in the Records of Rights, was scored through and the name of one Moti Bala introduced as “ezmali” (joint).
6. The writ petitioners have not challenged the said recording since decades, prior to the purchase of the property by the present private respondent. The cause of action for the writ petitioners approaching the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. for correction of the Records of Rights was the mutation of the property and consequential alteration in the Records of Rights
The B.L. & L.R.O. and appellate authority are authorized to correct erroneous ownership records, vindicating claimants' rights over real property.
Settlement authorities cannot override confirmed property rights without lawful authority; Judicial review ensures adherence to due process in land ownership disputes.
The court reaffirmed that unauthorized changes in land records without due process violate principles of natural justice and cannot substantiate claims of ownership less than legal title.
Settlement authorities cannot alter confirmed land assignments without legal basis, emphasizing the need to respect prior land grants and judicial confirmations.
Successive reviews are not permitted under Section 44(2A) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, and the authority cannot assume jurisdiction not vested in it by law.
Documentary evidence, particularly final ROR, takes precedence over oral claims in property title disputes; unsustainable claims must be rebutted within legal timeframes.
The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice to all interested parties in land disputes, ruling that orders passed against deceased persons are null and void.
The court emphasized the importance of valid ownership rights and the finality of adjudication in land ownership disputes.
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
