Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Ali Khan vs Mr. Kunal Agarwal & Ors on 5 January, 2021
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
05.01.2021
Item No.09
Court No.6
AP
WPCRC 52 of 2018
In
WPA 28339 of 2013
Md. Ali Khan
-Vs.-
Mr. Kunal Agarwal & Ors.
(Via Video Conference)
Mr. Sandip Ghosh,
Mr. Partha Sarkar
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay,
Mr. Subhasis Bandyopadhyay
... For the contemnors/respondents.
The petitioners had approached this Court by filing WP 28339(W) of 2013 claiming to be the owners of certain plots of land which were the subject matter of a decree passed by this Court in a second appeal on September 12, 1978. The grievance of the petitioners was that in spite of such decree of this Court, the record of rights had not been corrected by incorporating the names of the petitioners as the owners.
By an order dated August 28, 2015 this Court had disposed of the said writ petition. The relevant portion of the said order is as follows:-
"I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. It appears that the 'B' from has been submitted by the petitioners for correction of the record of rights. The learned counsel for the State respondent states that some other documents are required for the purpose of correcting the 2 record of rights. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that all necessary documents have been submitted.
Be that as it may, to avoid any further controversy and to ensure that the records of rights are corrected expeditiously, the respondent no. 6 is directed to communicate to the petitioners in clear terms any further documents that may be required for the purpose of correcting the records of rights. Such communication is to be made within a period of a fortnight from the communication of this order to be respondent no. 6. Upon receiving such communication, the petitioners shall supply copies of all relevant documents forthwith and positively within a period of a fortnight thereafter. Within four weeks from submission of such documents, correction of record of rights shall be completed.
If within a fortnight from the
communication of this order to the
respondent no. 6, no communication is received by the petitioners from the respondent no. 6, then it will be understood that no further documents are required by the respondent no. 6 and in that event the respondent no. 6 shall forthwith correct the records of rights.
The present contempt application was filed alleging that the aforesaid order of this Court has not been complied with by the competent authority, in its true spirit and intent. After several hearings an affidavit of compliance was filed on behalf of alleged contemnors. It appears from the annexures to such 3 affidavit that the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. had passed an order pursuant to this Court's order. The petitioners were dissatisfied with such order and had approached this Court again. This Court by an order dated August 4, 2016 directed the concerned D.L. & L.R.O. to consider the matter afresh. Pursuant to such direction the D.L. & L.R.O. has passed an order.
The petitioners are dissatisfied with the order of the D.L. & L.R.O. also. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the D.L. & L.R.O. did not apply his mind independently; he only mechanically reiterated what the B.L. & L.R.O. had said.
Learned counsel for the alleged contemnors submits that the Civil Court's decree which is the basis of the petitioners' claim, is a nullity in view of Section 57B(2) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. I am not prepared to accept such submission made on behalf of the alleged contemnors. The State of West Bengal accepted the decree of the Civil Court and did not challenge such decree before a higher forum. At the stage of execution or in a contempt proceeding a plea can now not be taken by the State that the concerned decree is a nullity. This is what a Division Bench of this Court held by an order dated March 31, 2014 in WPLRT 66 of 2014 (Bimala Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). Other decisions to the same effect have been cited by learned counsel for the petitioners but I do not deem it 4 necessary to refer to the same. The law in that regard seems to be well settled.
However, the fact remains that the D.L. & L.R.O. has passed an order pursuant to this Court's order. The petitioners are not happy with such order. They have an efficacious remedy by way of an application before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal under Section 10 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997. The rights and obligations of the parties vis a vis each other have crystallized in the second appellate decree of the Civil Court. What remains is implementation/execution of such decree. The petitioners contend that the concerned D.L. & L.R.O. did not implement the said decree in its true spirit and intent. Learned counsel for the State disputes such submission. In my opinion this is a dispute which can be better and more conveniently adjudicated upon by the aforesaid Tribunal.
Accordingly, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the aforesaid Tribunal by challenging the order of the D.L. & L.R.O. in question. It will be for the Tribunal to decide whether the D.L. & L.R.O. has implemented the second appellate decree of the Civil Court in its true spirit and intent. If the petitioners approach the Tribunal within a month from date, the Tribunal is requested to adjudicate upon the matter without going into the question of limitation or time- 5 bar as indicated in the Act of 1997. This is because, the matter has been pending before this Court for a long time.
However, the direction on the police authorities contained in the order dated August 28, 2015 passed in WP 28339 (W) of 2013, to ensure that no law and order problem occurs in or around the lands in question and to extend necessary protection to the petitioners, if such occasion arises, shall continue.
Rule stands discharged.
The contempt application being WPCRC 52 of 2018 is, thus, disposed of.
(Arijit Banerjee, J.)