Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of West Bengal vs Abu Raihan on 15 January, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. /2025
[@ SLP [C] NO.7880/2024]
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ABU RAIHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred by the State against the order of the Division Bench which, after construing the earlier order passed by the High Court in the Writ Petition in CR 700(W) of 1986 dated 06.03.1997, was pleased to direct the appellants to revise the orders passed under Section 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and the consequential order, on the premise that the order dated 06.03.1997 passed in the aforementioned Writ Petition had attained finality inter se the parties.
This case has a chequered history. The proceedings against the holder of the land Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2025.01.22 who submitted the relevant documentation in Form VII 18:04:10 IST Reason: has attained finality by the order dated 16.07.1978. It was challenged by way of a Writ Petition by the 2 respondents before us, inter alia contending that they have received an oral gift in the form of a Heba. The Division Bench of the High Court gave them liberty to take appropriate steps in the manner known to law.
Instead of initiating proceedings under the relevant Act, the respondents filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction without impleading the appellants as a party defendant. Though in the Form VII the original owner did not raise a plea relying on the Heba, a compromise was entered into by accepting the averments made in the plaint and accordingly giving effect to the alleged Heba dated 12.11.1967, which, as stated, was not brought to the notice of the authorities at the time of filing of the Form VII.
On that basis, a Writ Petition was filed by the respondents which was allowed by placing reliance upon the order of the Division Bench, that merely gave liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action, if the law so permits.
The West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal once again rejected O.A. No. 3015/2016 (LRTT)filed by the respondents and by way of the impugned judgment, the High Court was pleased to set aside Order dated 17.08.2022 by placing reliance upon the order dated 06.03.1997.
3
We find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellants. The order dated 06.03.1997 has to be understood in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench on the earlier occasion. To put it differently, the Division Bench, on the earlier occasion, merely gave liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action in the manner known to law. A civil suit can never be the remedy and, in any case, the compromise decree entered into between the parties will have no bearing on the appellants, as they were not a party to the same.
Admittedly, the said civil suit was filed after the conclusion of the proceedings dated 16.07.1978 by taking umbrage on the order passed by the Division Bench, which had merely facilitated them to pursue an appropriate recourse in a manner known to the law. Therefore, the approach of the Division Bench cannot be countenanced, as no right can be conferred based on the interpretation of the order dated 06.03.1997.
When the proceedings have already been concluded, and keeping in mind that no challenge has been laid to the concluded proceedings dated 16.07.1978, a subsequent decree to which the appellants are not party to, will have no binding effect on the appellants. We would only state that this is a belated attempt made by the original owner 4 in connivance with the respondents to not let go of the disputed land.
In our considered view, the High Court in the impugned judgment has not considered the relevant facts. Thus, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned judgment.
Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed and the impugned judgment stands set aside. No order as to costs.
Liberty is granted to the appellants to restore the original proceedings, as we have been informed that the order of the Division Bench has been given effect to at the time of initiation of the contempt proceedings.
...................J. [M.M. SUNDRESH] ...................J. [RAJESH BINDAL] NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 15, 2025.
5
ITEM NO.50 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7880/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-06-2023 in WPLRT No. 154/2022 passed by the High Court at Calcutta] THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ABU RAIHAN & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 15-01-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harin P. Raval, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Anand Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Ms. Joyee Maiti, Adv.
Mr. Anand, Adv.
Ms. Rajeshri Nivuratirao Reddy, Adv. Mr. Navneet Singh, Adv.
Mr. Paras Chauhan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (POONAM VAID) DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]