Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pradip Kumar Paria & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 16 July, 2014
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
1
16.07.2014.
d.p.
W.P.L.R.T. 231 of 2013
Pradip Kumar Paria & Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Manna.
...For the Petitioners.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee,
Md. Hasanuz Zaman.
...For the State.
This writ petition is directed against the judgement and/or
order passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy
Tribunal, First Bench in O.A. No. 2596 of 2003 (LRTT) at the
instance of the writ petitioners who were applicants before the
Learned Tribunal.
Let us now consider the merit of the writ petition in the facts
of the instant case.
Admittedly, Monaranjan Paria was an intermediary. The
disputed land was vested as surplus land of the intermediary
under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. Possession of
such vested land was not taken over by the State. The said
intermediary, while remained in possession of the disputed land
sold and transferred the same to one Dilip Nandan Samanta.
Subsequently, the State of West Bengal collected rent/revenue from
the said transferee viz. Dilip Nandan Samanta.
2
When possession of the disputed land was sought to be
taken by the State of West Bengal, a suit was filed by the said Dilip
Nandan Samanta before the Civil Court for declaration of his right,
title and interest in respect of the disputed property and for
injunction for restraining the State of West Bengal from disturbing
his possession in the suit property. The State of West Bengal which
was impleaded as defendant therein contested the said suit by
taking a stand that the disputed land was vested in the State under
the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act in the hands of Monaranjan
Paria an intermediary under the State.
It was further contended by the State-respondents that the
plaintiff did not acquire any title in the disputed property by virtue of such transfer made by the said intermediary in favour of the transferee. The said suit was dismissed on contest.
An appeal was preferred by the said transferee before the Appeal Court challenging the legality of the judgement and decree of the Learned Trial Judge but he ultimately could not succeed in the said appeal.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and decree of the Appeal Court, he preferred a Second Appeal before this Hon'ble Court. The said Second Appeal being S.A. No. 59 of 1973 was ultimately allowed by this Hon'ble Court on 14th November, 1980. This court held that since even after the disputed land was vested in the State, the State Government realized rent and/or revenue from the transferee who was in possession of the disputed land, an independent tenancy was created in favour of such transferee. As such, this Hon'ble Court held that the 3 independent tenancy which was created in favour of such transferee, cannot be disturbed.
Accordingly, the right, title and interest of the said transferee in respect of the disputed land was declared by this Hon'ble Court in the said Second Appeal and the State-respondents were restrained from disturbing the transferee's possession in respect of the said property.
Subsequently, the said transferee viz. Dilip Nandan Samanta applied for correction of record of rights for mutating his name as raiyat in respect of the said property and since such correction was not immediately effected on the basis of such application submitted by the said transferee, a writ petition was moved by the said transferee before this Hon'ble Court and the said writ petition which was registered as C.O. No. 2798(W) of 1996, was disposed of by the Learned Single Judge of this court on 24th June, 1996 by directing the Revenue Officer to correct the record of rights in terms of the judgement and decree passed by this Hon'ble Court.
Since even after disposal of the said writ petition, the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition was not implemented, the said Dilip Nandan Samanta (transferee) filed an application being O.A. No. 634 of 2013 (LRTT) before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal for implementation of the said order passed by this court. The said application was disposed of by the Learned Tribunal on 30th August, 2000. While disposing of the said Tribunal application, direction was given on the concerned B.L. & L.R.O., Bhagabanpur-II to review the B.R. Case (big raiyat) in the name of the intermediary Monaranjan Paria being Case No. M-25 under Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 4 by treating those three plots of land which were transferred to Dilip Nandan Samanta as the retained land of the intermediary and deduct equal amount of land from his retained land which was still in his possession or in possession of the successors-in-interest and effect necessary correction in the collector's khatian accordingly.
The said order was not challenged by any of the parties before any Higher Forum. However, when pursuant to the order passed by the Learned Tribunal, a notice was issued for reopening the said big raiyat case, the said notice was challenged by the heirs of the intermediary before the Tribunal. The said application which was registered as O.A. No. 2596 of 2003 (LRTT) was ultimately dismissed by the Learned Tribunal by an order passed on 22nd February, 2013.
The Learned Tribunal held that as Mr. Paria was an intermediary, the excess land held by the said intermediary will vest under Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act and further Since Mr. Paria transferred those three plots of land in favour of Dilip Nandan Samanta equivalent quantum of land retained by the said intermediary is required to be surrendered by the intermediary and/or his successor to the State of West Bengal.
The legality and/or propriety of the said order of the Learned Tribunal is under challenge in this writ petition.
On consideration of the materials on record including the order impugned, we do not find any illegality in the order impugned for two-fold reasons viz. firstly; the order passed by the Learned Tribunal in the earlier proceeding on 30th August, 2000 in O.A. No. 634 of 2000 (LRTT) having attained its finality, the said order 5 cannot be challenged by the parties subsequently in co-lateral proceeding before another bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction and secondly for the reason that since the tenancy of the subsequent transferee from the said intermediary was regularized by the State, the intermediary cannot refuse to surrender equivalent land from his retained land to the State.
In view of the judgement and decree passed by the Learned Tribunal on 30th August, 2000 in O.A. No. 634 of 2000(LRTT), the State-respondents now can recover equivalent quantum of land retained by the intermediary from the intermediary and/or his successor in office.
Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order impugned. The writ petition is devoid of any merit for consideration.
The writ petition thus, stands rejected.
It is however, made clear that since the tenancy of Dilip Nandan Samanta was recognised by the State and his right, title and interest in respect of the disputed property was declared by this Hon'ble High Court, the State-respondents are directed to correct the record of rights, so far as the disputed land is concerned, held by Dilip Nandan Samanta, positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocate for the petitioners immediately.
( Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J ) 6 ( Ishan Chandra Das, J.)