Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Prasant Bera vs The Government Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 July, 2016
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
01 W. P. No. 8372 (W) of 2016
13.07.2016
sb
Prasant Bera
Vs.
The Government of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Ashesh Kumar Bhattacharyya
Ms. Pratima Mishra
.... For the petitioner.
Mr. L. K. Gupta, Addl. A.G.
Mr. J. K. Gupta
... For the State.
Let the report in the form of an affidavit filed in Court today on
behalf of the respondent no.2 be taken on record.
The petitioner has approached this Court essentially seeking a mandatory order upon the concerned respondent authority, being the Additional District Magistrate & District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Jalpaiguri, to disburse compensation amount of Rs.30,52,000/- in terms of his claim as contained in a letter dated 18th November, 2014, which has not even been annexed to the writ petition. However, it appears that the claim for compensation has been made on behalf of the petitioner by his advocate in terms of his letter dated 6th April, 2016, which is annexed to the writ petition.
Be that as it may, this Court had earlier directed a report in the form of an affidavit to be filed on behalf of the concerned respondent authority stating therein specifically as to whether the allegations made in the writ petition have any basis or not. Such report in the form of an affidavit has been filed in Court today, wherein a report of the Additional District Magistrate & District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Jalpaiguri, signed on 5th July, 2016, has been annexed. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that when the original lease was executed on 12th January, 2006 (with effect from 1st January, 2 1996), two plots, being plot nos.1613 and 1549, covering a total area of 13.63 acres, were included in the schedule appended to the said lease deed. He submits that while doing so, the authorities left out plot nos. 1776 and 1536, even though his client was in possession of those two plots and was cultivating tea in the said two plots. In spite of the fact that the petitioner was cultivating in the total area of 13.63 acres covering the four plots, by an order dated 20th March, 2012, the Additional District Magistrate & District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Jalpaiguri, restrained him from taking away the tea produced in those two plots, i.e., plot numbers 1776 and 1536. This prompted his client to approach the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (LRTT). Orders were passed by the said Tribunal whereby the process of initiation of rectification of lease deed commenced and the two plots which were originally left out in the earlier lease agreement were included in the rectified lease deed which was executed on 10th July, 2014. He further submits that his client has a right to seek compensation from the State in respect of the two plots from which the petitioner was not allowed to take away the tea produced, pursuant to the order dated 20th March, 2012, passed by the Additional District Magistrate & District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Jalpaiguri.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, draws this Court's attention to the report of the Additional District Magistrate & District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Jalpaiguri, which is annexed to the report in the form of an affidavit filed in Court today on behalf of the State. He submits that it would appear therefrom that the two plots, namely, plot nos. 1776 and 1536 were not included in the original lease deed dated 12th January, 2006 (with effect from 1st 3 January, 1996), due to bona fide mistake on the part of the Amin. He submits that the rectified lease was issued in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the orders passed by the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. According to him, the order of the Additional District Magistrate & District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Jalpaiguri, dated 20th March, 2012, based on which the petitioner is seeking compensation, cannot be said to be a wrong order in view of the fact that the said order was issued on basis of the lease dated 12th January, 2006 (with effect from 1st January, 1996). He further submits that even though the two plots-in-question i.e., plot nos. 1776 and 1536 were not included in the schedule of lease dated 12th January, 2006 and the same was to the knowledge of the petitioner, disregarding such non- inclusion, the petitioner was all along cultivating tea in the said two plots. He also draws this Court's attention to the order of the Tribunal dated 17th October, 2012 and submits that it was by virtue of the said order, the order dated 20th March, 2012, passed by the Additional District Magistrate & District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Jalpaiguri, stood modified as follows:-
"The lessee will, henceforth, be permitted not only to enter the area not included in the plot schedule mentioned in the lease deed and to up keep the Tea plants but also to pluck the Tea leaves from such area which is termed by A.D.M. and D.L.& L.R.O., Jalpaiguri as Government property. The lessee will, however, maintain a separate account for the area not mentioned in the plot schedule of the lease deed and for such area he will submit periodical accounts and reports to the concerned A.D.M. and D.L. & L.R.O. under the supervision of one Officer duly authorized by him for the purpose till disposal of the O.A. No.360 of 2006.
With these terms, O.A. No. 2736 of 2012 (LRTT) is disposed of ".4
In such a factual backdrop, he submits that the question of compensation to the petitioner does not arise; rather the State has right to claim damages from the petitioner for having utilized two plots, being plot nos. 1776 and 1536 purely for commercial gain, until the order dated 20th March, 2012, came into effect.
Considering the respective submissions advanced by the parties, this Court takes note of certain relevant facts.
A lease agreement was entered into by and between the State and the petitioner on 12th January, 2006 (with effect from 1st January, 1996), covering two plots, being plot nos. 1613 and 1549. Plot nos. 1776 and 1536 were not included in the schedule of the lease dated 12th January, 2006. The petitioner approached the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal only upon issuance of the order dated 20th March, 2012, by the Additional District Magistrate & District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Jalpaiguri, and never earlier. The reason, perhaps, is that by virtue of the order dated 20th March, 2012, the petitioner was restrained from taking away the tea produced in those two plots, i.e., plot nos. 1776 and 1536. When all relevant facts were brought to the notice of the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, the order dated 17th October, 2012 was passed whereby the order dated 20th March, 2012 passed by the Additional District Magistrate & District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Jalpaiguri, stood modified in the manner as stated hereinbefore. Subsequently, a rectified lease agreement was entered into by and between the State and the petitioner on 10th July, 2014, whereby the two plots, namely, plot nos. 1776 and 1536 were included. It is the admitted position that till 20th March, 2012, the petitioner was enjoying all commercial benefits out of tea produced in the two 5 plots, namely, plot nos. 1776 and 1536, even though the petitioner was conscious of the fact that the two plots were not included in the schedule of the lease agreement dated 12th January, 2006, (with effect from 1st January, 1996). In fact, it was to the petitioner's knowledge that only two plots, bearing nos. 1613 and 1549 were included in the lease agreement dated 12th January, 2006. Even if non-inclusion of plot nos. 1776 and 1536 in the said lease dated 12th January, 2006, is considered to be a mistake on the part of the State, the petitioner had no right in law to commercially exploit the two plots, namely, plot nos. 1776 and 1536 till such time the lease dated 12th January, 2006 was duly rectified. Not only the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation on the basis of the order dated 20th March, 2012, issued by the Additional District Magistrate & District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Jalpaiguri, the State has a right in law to enforce the order dated 20th March, 2012, as modified by the order of the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal dated 17th October, 2012, by demanding from the petitioner details of the separate accounts for the two plots in terms of the Tribunal's order dated 17th October, 2012 and also demanding from the petitioner such amount of money which he earned out of commercial exploitation of the two plots, namely, plot nos. 1776 and 1536 until the rectified lease agreement dated 10th July, 2014 came into existence.
As such, there is no scope for the writ petitioner to seek a mandatory order commanding the Additional District Magistrate & District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Jalpaiguri, being the respondent no.2, to disburse compensation amounting to Rs.30,52,000/-, as quantified by him, in his favour.
6The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.)