Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Free India Dry Accumulators Limited & ... vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 23 July, 2018
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1
23.07.2018
ddas 69
WP 13495 (W) of 2005
With
WP 13219 (W) of 2012
Free India Dry Accumulators Limited & Anr.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. S. Panda, ld. sr. adv.
Mr. T. K. Sil
Mr. D. Choudhury
Mr. S. Bhattacharya
Mr. S. Chowdhury
Mr. P. Chowdhury
... ... For the petitioners
Mr. Kishore Dutta, ld. AG
Mr. Soumitra Bandhopadhyay
Mr. Aniruddha Sen
Mrs. Sujata Ghosh
... ...For the State
Mr. Joydip Kar, ld. sr. adv.
Mr. Moinak Bose
... ...For the respondent no. 4 in
WP 13219 (W) of 2012 Mr. Dutta, learned advocate, Advocate General, relies on judgment of Supreme Court in Kewa Chand Mimani vs. S. K. Sen & Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 512, to paragraphs 5, 8, 13 and 16 for facts and submissions and 31 for declaration of law. He submits, this judgment is applicable to facts of this case. Petitioners claiming to be lessee under the owners, their lease expired in the interregnum when possession had been taken by State. There is no disclosure to show exercise of option to renew. Hence, petitioners have lost their possessory right under lease 2 expired by efflux of time. This Court doing equity has to consider that there is not even an iota of right existing in favour of petitioners to call for their possessory right.
Mr. Panda, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners submits, West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 is all about effect, that too momentary, on ownership of land. Prior to enactment owner of land was absolute owner. He could also mine and quarry in land owned by him. This came to an end by enactment of Act I of 1954 being West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. Section 1 is short title and extent of the Act while section 2 provides for definitions. Section 3 makes the Act override other laws. Section 4 provides for vesting of estates and rights of intermediary by notification. His clients are concerned with sections 5 and 6, which are respectively, effect of notification and right to retain. Notification in respect of land in question was made. Section 5 provides for effect on the land in question to be, right of intermediary in the land, to which notification made applies, shall vest in the State free from all encumbrances. Any right in the land either lessor or his client as lessees had was freed for the land to cleanly vest in the State. That meant his client, on such vesting, could not be called lessees any longer.
His client being then in possession, therefore, had right, under section 6 sub-section (1) clauses (a) to (c) to retain the land. He reiterates, no order of retention was necessary, nor was 3 possession upon retention under any subsisting lease, whether under original owner or State. Kewal Chand Mimani (supra) has no application to this case, as also does not Ratnagari (supra).
Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 4 in writ petition of 2012 and submits, position of petitioner is that of lessee on same terms and conditions but under State. That lease expired by efflux of time. He supports submissions made on behalf of State. Mr. Panda's reply is that lease is part of proviso to sub-section (2) of section 6. He reiterates his submission on losing right and interest in respect of land possessed by his client as on date of vesting. His client retained possession as deemed to hold the same directly under State from date of vesting as a tenant. The land not having been classified as land comprised in mill, factory or workshop as held so immediately before date of vesting under a lease, his clients' retention of possession cannot be resisted on ground of expiry of lease.
List on 30th July, 2018 for hearing of WP 13219 (W) of 2012.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)