Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Brc Construction Company Private ... vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 8 April, 2015
Author: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
Bench: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
Form No. J. (2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
and
The Hon'ble Justice Subrata Talukdar
W.P.L.R.T. No. 353 of 2014
BRC Construction Company Private Limited and another
...Petitioners.
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal and others
...Respondents.
With
W.P.L.R.T. No. 142 of 2013
Ram Gopal Agarwala and others
...Petitioners.
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal and others
...Respondents.
For the petitioners in W.P.L.R.T. No. 353 of 2014: Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee,
Mr. Debjit Mukherjee,
Mr. Kaushik Banerjee,
Ms. S. Chakraborty,
Mr. R. Dutt,
Mr. P. Basu.
For the respondents in W.P.L.R.T. No. 353 of 2014: Mr. Sadananda Ganguly,
Mr. Saikat Chatterjee.
For the petitioners in W.P.L.R.T. No. 142 of 2013: Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee,
Mr. Shantimoy Panda,
Mr. Tapas Sil,
Mr. Sanjoy Ginodia,
Mr. Manoj Kumar Tiwari.
[
For the respondents in W.P.L.R.T. No. 142 of 2013: Mr. Jagadish Chandra Das,
Mr. Binoy Kumar Das.
Judgment on: April 8, 2015.
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.:
W.P.L.R.T 353 of 2014 is directed against the judgment and order dated November 05, 2014 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, in O.A No. 2022 of 2014.
W.P.L.R.T 142 of 2014 is directed against the judgment and order dated May 16, 2013 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, in O.A No. 1441 of 2013.
Since, similar questions of facts and law are involved in both the writ petitions, by consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, we took up the hearing of both the writ petitions simultaneously, to avoid conflicting judicial opinions.
However, for the sake of convenience, we first deal with the facts in connection with W.P.L.R.T 353 of 2014.
The predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, Hindwire Industries Limited (HIL in short) purchased land, inter alia, 6.60 acres at premises no. 47, Eke Road, Kolkata - 700 115 under Khardah Police Station, by several deeds of conveyance made and executed between the years 1948 to 1952. In course of time, the name of HIL was recorded as a raiyat in the record of rights. HIL was paying the land revenue.
HIL in course of its business obtained financial assistance from Allahabad Bank and other financial institutions by mortgaging the entirety of the said premises. However, in the year 1997, HIL filed a reference before the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Such reference abated before the BIFR, as the secured creditors including Allahabad Bank, had taken measures to recover the dues under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act of 2002 in short). In the meanwhile, all the rights, interest and title in the financing documents and all collateral and underlying securities, interest and guarantee were assigned by Allahabad Bank to Assets Reconstruction Company (India) limited (ARCIL in short) which in turn assigned its rights to N.E. Electronics Limited and who further assigned its rights for valuable consideration to Pioneer Prodev Private Limited.
Thereafter, by virtue of a deed of conveyance dated June 12, 2012, the petitioner purchased the said premises along with structures buildings, etc., free from all encumbrances for a total consideration of Rs. 14,15,00,000/- (Rupees fourteen crore fifteen lakh) only and, also, free from all charges, liens, mortgage, interest, claim, demand, attachment etc in terms of a settlement amongst the parties concerned. The petitioner, also, received vacant possession of the property containing an area of 6.60 acres together with factory shed spread over 2000 square feet.
Immediately, after purchasing the said premises, the petitioner applied on August 1, 2012 before the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Barrackpore-II for mutation of the land at the said premises (the said application in short) in the prescribed format along with all necessary documents establishing its proof of transfer of the property and, also, contending that the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the property. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Barrackpore-II, also, demanded land revenue and surcharge from HIL by memo no. 412/BLRO/BKP-II dated March 4, 2014 to the tune of Rs. 20,35,572/- for a total area of land measuring 7.36 acres, which included the 6.00 acres of land purchased by HIL for and up to Bengali year 1420.
However, since the authorities sat tight over the said application without citing any reason or shortcoming in the mutation application and refused to take any decision thereon, the applicant was constrained to file an application being O.A. 941 of 2014 in the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal and on mentioning requested for early disposal of the same. The learned tribunal, however, disallowed the prayer for early hearing and fixed the next date for hearing of the application on June 13, 2014.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated March 28, 2013, the applicant filed an application under Articles 226 and 227 read with 323A and 323B of the Constitution of India before this Court.
This Court at Calcutta, after hearing both the parties, by an order dated April 7, 2014, directed the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Barrackpore-II to dispose of the said application for mutation by passing a reasoned order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the other interested parties, positively within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
By the order dated May 21, 2014, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer rejected the application for mutation holding, inter alia, that on scrutiny of record of rights, it was found that the property was allowed to be retained by HIL by order dated February 21, 1963 issued by the Land and Land Revenue Department for the factory purpose as per terms and conditions as laid down in Section 6(1)(g) read with Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. It was, further, held that the land so retained is resumable by the Government of West Bengal on failure of retainee company to use the land for specific purpose for which it was allowed to be retained as per the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, as amended in 2009. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, further, held that only right that HIL had over the land was the right of possession for specific use of the land minus right of ownership. It was, further, held that since HIL had never had exclusive ownership over the property that was retained by it as per Section 6(1)(g), HIL had no transferable right in respect of the property as per Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. Thus, the transfer of the same in favour of the applicant without obtaining due approval from the competent authority, that is, the Land and Land Reforms Department, is void ab initio and, hence, no right whatsoever accrues in favour of the applicant. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, thus, dismissed the application for mutation.
By the impugned judgment and order dated November, 2014, the tribunal dismissed the said original application holding, inter alia, that Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act is even applicable on land held by non-agricultural tenants in terms of Section 5(1)(c). The tribunal, therefore, held that HIL, not being a raiyat, had no scope to claim the ownership over the said land in disregard to the statutory provision of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and the West Bengal Land Reforms Act as well.
Accordingly, the tribunal was of the considered view and concurrent opinion that the said land is covered by Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act of 1953. It is, further, held that only the name of a raiyat could be mutated in L.R. Khatian. Neither the HIL nor the applicant could be recognized as a raiyat. So, according to the tribunal, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer was justified in his decision in not allowing mutation in favour of the applicant.
The right, title and interest of HIL over 6.60 acres of land acquired between 1948 and 1952 and recorded as retained lands in the finally published record of rights is not affected by the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, (WBEA in short) and cannot nullify the acquisition of interest in respect of the 6.60 acres of land by the writ petitioners.
The interest of HIL was transferred at the instance of the Allahabad Bank under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act of 2002 in short), a Central Act, and, ultimately, acquired by the writ petitioner.
The Tribunal has relied upon the provisions of Section 37 of the said Act of 2002, which reads as follows:
"The provisions of this Act or the Rules made there under shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956), the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), the Recovery Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) or any other law for the time being in force."
Assuming that the provisions of Section 6 (3) of the Estates Acquisition Act was applicable, it cannot be disputed that post retention status of the intermediary or a deemed intermediary under Chapter VI of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 was that of a statutory tenant. Such a tenant could be either a non-agricultural tenant under Rule 4(B) (2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules, 1954, (EA Rules, in short) holding non- agricultural land for not less than twelve years without any lease in writing or an occupancy raiyat under Section 23 of the Bengal Tenancy Act with right to transfer under Section 26 of the Bengal Tenancy Act as indicated in Rule 4(B)(3)(i) of the EA Rules, 1954.
Under the provisions of Section 8 (4)(ii) of the Non Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, such a deemed non-agricultural tenancy is transferable. Section 8 (4)(ii) of the Non Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, declares:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, be capable of being transferred and bequeathed in the same manner and to the same extent as his other immovable property."
Section 26 B of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which is made applicable by Rule 4(B) (3) of the Estate Acquisition Rules, 1954, reads as follows:
"the holding of an occupancy raiyat or a share of a portion thereof, together with the right of occupancy therein, shall subject to the provisions of the Act, be capable of being transferred in the same manner and to the same extent as other immovable property."
Thus the statutory tenant under Section 6 (2) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 whether he is a non-agricultural tenant or an occupancy raiyat is entitled to transfer his right, title and interest.
There is nothing in Section 6 (2) or Section 6 (3) of the Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 to make any retained land held by a statutory tenant under Section 6 (2) of the said Act, to be non-transferable.
In the present case such transfer was made under the Special Provisions of the 2002 Act.
The Tribunal has observed as follows:
"Only a raiyat under the WBLR Act has transferable and heritable rights under Section 4 (1) of the Act. A retainer under Section 6(3), lessee over government land and a thika tenant cannot claim raiyati status and cannot have any transferable right. They cannot claim ownership over the property under their possession. A tenant under WBEA Act under Section 6 (2) acquired raiyati status with transferable right only with effect from March 30, 1956 as per provisions of WBLR Act subject to the conditions contained in Section 4 (1) of the Act. The Hindwire Industries Limited being a retainer could not acquire raiyati status and had noi right whatsoever to transfer the suit land."
It may be noted that under Section 1 (3) on March 30, 1956, only Section 1 of the WBLR Act 1955 came into force and not the other sections. Section 4 (1) of the 1955 Act, came into force subsequently on June 4, 1965.
Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 has been subsequently amended by the WB Act 28 of 2005 with effect from August 7, 1969 to provide that any person or institution, who holds any plot of land by retaining such plots of land under clause (g) of sub-Section (1) read with sub-Section (3) of Section 6 of the WBEA Act, 1953 "shall be a raiyat for the purpose of this subsection."
However, this amended provision does not provide that in such a case the tenant under Section 6 (2) of the Estates Acquisition Act 1953 shall cease to have the right to transfer under Section 6 (2) of the 1953 Act read with Rule 4(B) (2) or rule 4(B) (3) of the Estates Acquisition Rules 1954.
The effect of the explanation to Section 4 (1) of the 1955 Act was confined to that sub Section and only prevented the application of that sub- Section 4 (1), which provided:
"4 (1) subject to the said provisions of this Act, a raiyat shall on and or and after the enforcement of this Act be the owner of his plot of land and the plot of land shall be heritable and transferable".
A tenant under Section 6 (2) even when governed by sub-Section (3) of Section 6 remains entitled to the benefit of Rule 4 (2) and (3) of the EA Rules 1954.
The observation of the Tribunal that HIL had no transferable interest is untenable. Again, HIL's interest had been transferred under the Central Act of 2002. The writ petitioners are the subsequent purchasers of the property comprising altogether 6.60 acres with building and structures.
The learned Tribunal has observed:
"The provisions of the Act 2002 are applicable in addition to WBEA Act and WBLR Act but not in derogation of the provisions of these Acts. Hence, the conditional overriding effect given in Section 35 of the Act, 2002 cannot have any effect to nullify the provisions of the WBEA Act and the WBLR Act."
The 2002 Act does not nullify the two state Acts. The Central Act is a special Act and in respect of its special subject will override the two State Acts.
The 2002 Act comes under Entry 45 of list 1 in Schedule VII of the Constitution. Entry 45 covers the legislative field "Banking" and it is within the exclusive legislative field of the Union. Nothing in the two legislations can affect the operation and effect of the 2002 Act. The Tribunal has, also, proceeded in total disregard of Article 246 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the legislative powers of the Union and the States and declares:
"(1) notwithstanding anything in Clauses (2) and (3) parliament has conclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the seventh Schedule"
The second important concept of the matter is the applicability of the Estates Acquisition Act 1953.
The Tribunal observes that hence it goes without saying that even the land of non-agricultural tenant is subject to provisions of Section 6(3) of the WBEA Act read with Section 5(1) of the said Act.
The Tribunal did not accept the contentions of petitioner that only intermediaries are liable to be affected under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. It is clear that rights of non-agricultural tenant under Section 5 (1) (c) is also liable to be affected equally at par with intermediary when the lands are utilized for mill, factory, and workshop purposes.
The WBEA Act came into force in 1954. Initially there was some doubt about the applicability of the Act to non-agricultural Tenancy. Revisional record of rights was prepared by attestation and formal publication from 1954. Some non-agricultural tenants were recorded as raiyats as in the instant case. There is no doubt that HIL was an Industrial concern. The Tribunal itself records that this is a non-agricultural tenancy but holds that even then the Act of 1954 Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 applies.
In Shibshankar Nandy versus Prabartak Sangha and others reported in AIR 1967 SC 940 the Supreme Court of India settled the question and held that non agricultural tenancies are not affected by the Estates Acquisition Act 1953 and they do not vest under the said Act.
It may be noted from the definition of intermediary in Section 2 (i) of the Act that a non-agricultural tenant is not an intermediary. A Raiyat is deemed to be an intermediary under Chapter VI of the Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and Raiyati Estate is made to vest like the estate of the intermediary proper. But, there is no provision in the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, to treat non-agricultural tenants as deemed intermediary. Upon such view it has been consistently held by this Court that non-agricultural tenancy would never vest under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, in the following decisions:
(i) Manindra Nath Mukherjee versus Nitai Chandra Hazra reported in 71 CWN 278.
(ii) Asrurekha Dutta versus Diptimay Pal and another reported in 70 CWN 1079.
(iii) Fakir Chandra Chakravarty versus Pandit Sri Lakshmi Kant Jha and others reported in 75 CWN 952.
It may be noted that the non-agricultural tenancy and under tenancies were made to vest under Section 3A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 with effect from September 9, 1980 and only the provisions of Section 5 and 5A of the Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 have been made applicable. Section 6(3) of Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 has no application in respect of vesting under Section 3A of the 1955 Act.
The total land including factory sheds, structures etc. are 6.60 acre. This is well below the ceiling of agricultural and non-agricultural land. Land with structure has no ceiling.
Section 4 of the Estate Acquisition Act provides for issuance of notification and consequent vesting of all the estates and the rights of every intermediary in each such estate with effect from the date mentioned in a notification. The kind of vesting contemplated by Section 4 is further clarified by Section 5 of the Act dealing with the "Effect of Notification". Section 5(1)
(a) reiterates that upon the deemed publication of a notification under Section 4, and upon the date of vesting the estates and the right of intermediary in the estates, to which the declaration applies, shall vest in the State free from all encumbrances.
Section 6 declares that notwithstanding anything contained in sections 4 and 5, an intermediary shall, except in the cases mentioned in the proviso to sub- Section 2, but subject to the other provisions of that sub-Section, be entitled to retain with effect from the date of vesting. Section 6(1) deals with different categories of lands Thus, after vesting under Section 4 of the Estate Acquisition Act the erstwhile intermediary is allowed to retain not the pre-vesting estates or rights therein, but the land of different categories subject to ceiling or without it. Sub-Section (2) of Section 6, inter alia, declares that an intermediary, who is entitled to retain possession of his land under sub-Section (1) shall be deemed to hold such land directly under the State from the date of vesting as a tenant. The post-vesting status of an erstwhile intermediary is that of a statutory tenant subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. Rule 4(2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules provides that if the land held by intermediary being non-agricultural land, he shall hold it as a tenant under the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, holding non-agricultural land for not less than twelve years without any lease in writing. If, however, the land held by intermediary is agricultural land, he shall hold it, mutatis mutandi on the terms and conditions mentioned in the specified Sections of the West Bengal Tenancy Act.
Thus, the status of a post-vesting intermediary retaining any land under Section 6 is not that of a mere licensee, but that of a statutory tenant.
Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Tenancy Act provides for retention of certain categories of lands, namely, lands comprised in tea garden, mill, factory or workshop by the intermediary and declares that such an intermediary shall be entitled to retain only so much of such land as, in the opinion of the State Government, is required for the tea garden, mill, factory or workshop as the case may be.
The proviso to Section 6(3) of the said Act enables the State Government to review the circumstances of a case and, after giving the intermediary an opportunity of being heard, revise any order made under this Sub-section.
Explanation 2 has been added to Section 6(3) to overcome the difficulty arising of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of West Bengal and others versus Ratnagiri Engineering Private Limited and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 453. It remains to be decided whether such an explanation can be legally introduced to clearly override a particular judgment of the Supreme Court of India right on the point. It is not an explanation introduced to clarify or remove any defect in the pre-existing law, but to override the judgment of the Supreme Court of India without amending the substantive part of the pre-existing law.
Section 6(I)(a) and 6(I) (b), also, use the expression 'comprised in'. The dictionary meaning of the word 'comprise' is include, comprehend, consist of, be composed of - concise Oxford Dictionary.
Section 6(I)(b) is wider in its application and refers to land comprised in or appertaining to, but Section 6(I)(a) and Section 6(I)(g) refer only to land comprised in and not appertaining to. Under the statutory scheme land appertaining to homestead does not come under the respective clauses. They will be governed by other provisions like Section 6(I)(c).
Lands coming under clauses (a), (c) and (d) of Section 6(1) have their respective ceilings.
An industrial unit will usually have land comprised in a mill or factory and lands appertaining thereto. Such land appertaining to a mill, factory should not come under Section 6(1)(g) and will be governed by Section 6(1)(c).
Section 6(3) deals with land 'comprised in' mill, factory etc. Section 6(1)(b) permits retention of the land comprised in or appertaining to buildings and structures without any ceiling.
Upon a careful analysis of the provisions of Section 6(1)(g) read with Section 6(3), it can even be applied to one cottah plot with a small manufacturing unit. It may well be that post-vesting tenant of one cottah plot has no other plot and in the event of his stopping the operation of such unit after date of vesting there may be a claim of the State Government to revise the order of retention and resume even to such one cottah plot such an application of said two provisions will be contrary to the scheme of the Act seeking to bring about agrarian reform.
But, such an interpretation of the two provisions, namely, Section 6(1)(g) and 6(3) read with recently introduced explanation are not of any assistance to the State Government. As revision of Section 6(3) and any vesting of a portion of the whole of the retained plot of land with structures thereon will be an unjust deprivation and deprivation offending the provisions of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. An intermediary holding a bare plot of land will be entitled to compensation according to the scheme of Sections 16 and 17. But, a post-vesting tenant holding mill, factory structures will be having no compensation at all for structures and buildings as the Act does not provide for it. The provision of Sections 16 and 17 are illusory in their content and in their application to lands comprised in mills and factories when they are sought to be vested upon revision. The provisions of Section 16(1)(g) lead to absurdity.
The Estate Acquisition Act does not contemplate vesting of land with structures and, therefore, do not provide for any compensation not even of their vesting.
We are informed that the decisions of this Court on similar lines in Saregama India Limited versus State of West Bengal reported in 2014 (2) Calcutta Law Times 311 and the State of West Bengal and others versus Star Iron Works Limited and others reported in 2012 (2) Calcutta Law Times 639 were challenged before the Supreme Court of India and the challenges proved to be futile.
Our conclusions, therefore, are that:
(a) the State cannot resume any land, which is within ceiling limit, according to Section 6(3) of the Estates Acquisition Act, 1953,
(b) the State cannot resume any land with structures under Section 6(3) of the Estates Acquisition Act, as it does not contain any provision for vesting of structures,
(c) as the land of the petitioner is well within the ceiling limit with existing structures, even assuming that Section 6(3) applies to the land, still the State cannot resume the land in question.
We, therefore, allow this application and set aside the order of the Land and Land Reforms authorities and that of the tribunal.
We, further, direct the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned to forthwith mutate the name of the petitioner no. 1 in respect of the property in question, to accept the land revenue from the petitioner no. 1 in relation to the land in question and, also, to consider favourably the prayer of conversion of the land in bastu (homestead) within a month from the date of communication of this order.
Now, we deal with W.P.L.R.T 142 of 2013.
This writ petition is directed against judgment dated May 16, 2013 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, in O.A No. 1441 of 2013 holding, inter alia, that as the writ petitioners had scope to ventilate their grievances before the authority concerned at the time of hearing, they should appear and have the issues decided by the Sub-divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer at Alipore (Sadar), district - South 24 Parganas.
On November 24, 1941, the predecessor- in- interest of the petitioners purchased lands in question with structures and machinery from one Peary Mohan Roy. The said Peary Mohan Roy was running a rice mill on the property and had constructed sheds and structures for running the said mill. The predecessors- in- interest of the petitioner, after purchase of the lands in question, were possessing the property and paying the rents regularly to the State Government.
The State of West Bengal, inter alia, instituted a suit for eviction of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, which was registered as Title Suit no. 310 of 1950. The suit was dismissed by judgement and decree dated August 21, 1951 on contest upon a finding that the predecessors-in-interest of this petitioner was a non-agricultural tenant and, thus, acquired a non-ejectable right.
The State preferred an appeal, which was registered as T.A. No. 1056 of 1951. The parties settled the dispute in appeal. It was agreed that the predecessor-in-interest of this petitioner would continue his occupation as a tenant and it was, further, recorded that already a lease was executed by the parties confirming the existing tenancy with an enhanced rent with effect from April 1, 1953. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed on December 9, 1952 in terms of the petition of compromise.
In the finally published revisional record of rights, the names of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner were recorded.
In the aforesaid background, a notice dated May 6, 2013 was served upon the petitioners under Section 57 read with Section 63 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The case was registered as Case No. 1 of 2013 before the Sub-Divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer, Alipore (Sadar), district - South 24 Parganas. The writ petitioner submitted an application before the said Sub-divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer on May 17, 2013, contending that they were non-agricultural tenants and the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act had no application. Since, no order was passed on such application, the petitioners approached the tribunal with O.A. No. 1441 of 2013.
On the similar reasoning, we, also, feel that the Sub-divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer initiated the proceeding illegally. The order of the tribunal is set aside. The review proceeding being Case No. 1 of 2013 pending before the Sub-divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer, Alipore (Sadar), South 24 Parganas, is quashed.
The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned is directed to mutate the names of these petitioners in the record of rights within one month from the date of communication of this order and to accept the land revenue from the petitioners in relation to the land in question.
Thus, both the writ petitions are allowed.
In view of disposal of W.P.L.R.T 142 of 2013, the connected application, filed under C.A.N. 11617 of 2014, becomes infructuous and is, also, disposed of.
We, however, direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these writ petitions.
(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.) Subrata Talukdar, J.
I agree.
(Subrata Talukdar, J.)