Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Prosanta Kumar Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 December, 2018
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
94 6.12.18
Sc
W.P.L.R.T. 95 OF 2018
------------------
Prosanta Kumar Roy
-vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Bratindra Narayan Roy Ms. Priyanka Das.
......For the Petitioner.
Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay Mr. Priyabrata Batabyal.
......For the State.
The petitioner had approached the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (hereafter the tribunal) by presenting O.A. No. 4242 of 2014 (LRTT) complaining of inaction of the respondents in correcting the Record of Rights (hereafter the RoR). In such application, it was claimed by the petitioner that a proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner's deceased father under section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereafter the Act) on the allegation that he held lands in excess of the ceiling limit (hereafter the subject lands) and despite an order dated December 19, 2003 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on W.P.L.R.T. 960 of 2003 restraining the relevant revenue officer from passing the final order in such proceeding, an order of vesting was passed on January 27, 2004 in brazen violation thereof; further that, during the pendency of a contempt application being filed before this Court (CPAN 839 of 2007), the respondents had withdrawn the order of vesting on March 25, 2008 leading to disposal of such contempt application recording such withdrawal but with liberty to the petitioner, upon consideration of the other allegation of violation that the respondents had created third party interests in the subject lands, to seek restoration of such lands by taking recourse to the normal remedy; and also that, despite approaching the respondents with several requests, the subject lands are continued to be shown in the relevant records as in Khatian No.1 i.e., vested in the State.
2The tribunal upon hearing the parties passed a detailed order dated August 24, 2018, which is impugned in this writ petition. The tribunal noted that proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court in respect of the challenge to certain provisions of the Act and that the Supreme Court, in its several orders, had directed the parties affected by proceedings initiated under section 14T(3) of the Act to maintain status quo in respect of possession of the lands sought to be vested as well as restraining the parties to the proceedings from creating any third party interest in respect of such lands. The tribunal was of the view, on consideration of several decisions of this Court rendered during the seventies and eighties of the last century, that none holding land in excess of the ceiling limits could legitimately claim to retain the same and, therefore, interest of justice would be best served if, pending decision by the Supreme Court, the parties to the original application are directed to maintain status quo as regards possession and records.
Refusal of the tribunal to direct the respondents to effect correction in the RoR on the ground that the order of vesting does not survive, is the immediate cause of dissatisfaction for the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Mr. Roy, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned junior Government advocate appearing for the State have been heard.
We find substance in the contention of Mr. Roy that the vesting order dated January 27, 2004 having been withdrawn by the order dated March 25, 2008, the respondents should have followed up such order of withdrawal with a correction in the RoR by not showing the subject lands as included in Khatian No.1. Although Mr. Bandyopadhyay has prayed for an opportunity to file affidavit-in-opposition, we do not see reason to keep the writ petition pending since without a legal and valid vesting order being in existence in respect of the subject lands, the same cannot be shown as vested lands. We are of the view that interest of justice would be best served if this writ petition is disposed of at this stage with suitable directions. 3
The respondents shall immediately restore the subject lands to the status prior to the vesting order dated January 27, 2004 by taking appropriate steps. The subject lands shall be shown to belong to the raiyat (since deceased) by issuing appropriate RoR. This exercise shall be completed as early as possible but not later than four weeks from receipt of this order. We, however, make it clear that the exercise to be undertaken in terms of this order shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents and depend on the outcome of SLP (Civil) 1416 of 1997. The respondents shall be at liberty to make such an endorsement in the corrected RoR to be issued in terms of this order.
We also make it clear that the petitioner while retaining possession of the subject lands in terms of the order of the tribunal shall remain restrained from alienating, encumbering or otherwise dealing with the subject lands in any manner whatsoever and shall not create any third party interest till the disposal of SLP (Civil) No.1416 of 1997.
In the event of any encroachment of the subject land by parties not having authority to enter upon it, the petitioner's liberty to have such encroachers removed is, however, reserved.
With these directions the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.
(Dipankar Datta, J.) (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)