Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Krishna Mitra Chowdhury & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 November, 2013
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
1
26.11.2013.
d.p.
W.P.L.R.T. 339 of 2012
Krishna Mitra Chowdhury & Ors.
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Arunava Ghosh,
Mr. Supriya Chatterjee,
Mr. Soumen Kr. Dutta,
Mr. Subhas Jana.
...For the Petitioners.
Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata,
Mr. P.B. Mahata.
...For the State.
The order of vesting which was earlier passed by the Revenue
Officer in respect of the petitioners land in case No. 1/14T(3) of
1996, was set aside by this Hon'ble Court by the judgement and/or
order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court on
8th April, 1997 in W.P. No. 5213(W) of 1997. The said order of
vesting was set aside by taking note of the judgement passed by the
Division Bench of this Court reported in 1996(2) CLJ page 285 and
liberty was given to the State-respondents to proceed afresh. The
parties accepted the said order. Thus the said order attained its finality. Subsequently, a fresh proceeding was initiated under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for determination of the ceiling limit of the petitioners by issuance of a notice dated 12th October, 2011 appearing at page 53 of this writ petition. The said proceeding was registered as Case No. 1/14T(3) of 2011.
2The legality of the said notice initiating the proceeding under Section 14T(3) of the Land Reforms Act was challenged by the petitioners by filing an application before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. The said proceeding which was registered as Case No. O.A. 76/2012 (LRTT), was disposed of by the Learned Tribunal on 27th November, 2012. The Learned Tribunal held that the proceeding which was initiated for determination of the ceiling limit of the petitioners, is legal and valid in view of the liberty granted to the State-respondents by the Learned Tribunal of this Hon'ble Court while disposing of the earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 5213(W) of 1997. The Learned Tribunal further held that the challenge which was made with regard to the legality of the notice impugned in the said application appears to be premature. The said original application was thus, dismissed and the concerned B.L. & L.R.O., Contai-III, District- Purba Medinipur was directed to conclude the said proceeding, if not concluded earlier.
The legality and/or propriety of the said order passed by the Learned Tribunal is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the raiyat viz. the petitioners herein.
Let us now consider as to how far the Learned Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case.
It is well settled that no part of the land of a raiyat can be vested without payment of compensation under the scheme of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. Section 14V of the said Act provided for payment of compensation to the raiyat in respect of the land held by a raiyat in excess of the ceiling limit. The vires of 3 the said provision regarding payment of compensation as contained in Section 14V of the said Act was challenged in Paschim Banga Bhumijibi Sangha's case reported in 1996(2) CLJ, 285 wherein the said provision was held to be ultra vires by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court.
Since the said provision was held to be ultra vires, the provision relating to vesting practically became inoperative. As such, if we consider the present case from this angle then of course the further proceeding which was initiated for determination of the ceiling limit of the petitioners, cannot be held to be justified.
However, the decision which was passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Bhumijibi Sangha's case has already been challenged by the State of West Bengal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said judgement is still under scrutiny before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So long as the judgement which was passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the Bhumijibi Sangha's case is not set aside and/or quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the judgement which was passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Bhumijibi Sangha's case is the law which is operating in the field.
Mr. Mahata, learned advocate appearing for the State- respondents informs us that after entertaining the said appeal, Hon'ble Supreme Court passed interim order staying the operation of the judgement impugned in the said appeal, and the State- respondents were restrained from creating any third party interest and/or disturbing the petitioners' possession in the land in question. He thus submits that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not restrained the State of West Bengal from proceeding with 4 the 14T(3) proceeding for determination of ceiling limit of the raiyat, his clients may be permitted to proceed with the 14T(3) proceeding which was initiated on the basis of the impugned notice. He further submits that his clients will neither create any third party right nor will induct anybody to enter into and/or squat on the petitioners' land in question until the pending proceeding before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is finally decided.
It is well settled that the benefit of the interim arrangement made in appeal, can be enjoyed by those who are parties to the proceeding and not by strangers. Since admittedly the petitioners were not parties to the appeal pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interim arrangement which was made in that appeal cannot bind the petitioners.
We are informed that the said appeal has not yet been finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such, we cannot conclusively decide the point which is raised before this Court regarding legality of initiation of such proceeding as different consequences may follow depending upon the ultimate decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Appeal. In the event the order which was passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court is ultimately maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending appeal, then the State-respondents will not be entitled to proceed with the pending determination proceeding under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
On the contrary, if the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Bhumijibi Sangha's case is not ultimately maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the validity of the provision contained in Section 14V of the said Act is 5 upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then certainly the State- respondents can conclude the proceeding for determination of ceiling limit of the petitioners which was subsequently initiated by the State-respondent.
Thus, to avoid multiplicity of proceeding this court feels that instead of quashing the notice at this stage, justice will be subserved if the determination proceeding which was initiated under Section 14T(3) of the said Act, is stayed until the issue which is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is finally decided.
We come to this conclusion as in our view, if we permit the impugned proceeding to be continued pending disposal of the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the State- respondents ultimately fail to succeed in the said appeal then the petitioners will be involved in participating in the said proceeding unnecessarily.
Under such circumstances, we hold that the Learned Tribunal was not justified in passing the impugned order by permitting the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. to conclude the present proceeding for determination of the ceiling limit of the petitioners under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
We thus, modify the impugned order by staying all further proceedings of Case No. 1/14T(3)/11 pending before the B.L. & L.R.O., Contai-III, District- Purba Medinipur until the appeal pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court arising out of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Bhumijibi Sangha's case is finally decided.
6It is made clear that the fate of the said proceeding will be ultimately governed by the decision to be taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said appeal.
The State-respondents are thus, restrained from disturbing peaceful possession of the petitioners in respect of the land in question until the petitioners' land is vested in accordance with law.
The writ petition is thus, disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocate for the petitioner immediately.
( Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J ) ( Arindam Sinha, J.)