Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The case of the State of West Bengal, the petitioner, is that the transfer in question took place between the period of mischief, namely, May 5, 1953 and the date of vesting of the estates in the State. The Schedules referred to above were unregistered, antedated documents. As the transfer was made within the period referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 5-A of the said Act and as the transfer was in favour of the sons of the transferee who had lands in excess of the ceiling prescribed by the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, the transfer was not a bona fide one and should, therefore, stand cancelled.

5. The Assistant Settlement Officer on consideration of the materials before him came to the conclusion that the 3 unregistered schedules were nothing but antedated documents created by said Jatindra Lal Mitra Chowdhury, the father of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 for avoiding enquiry under Section 5-A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to the said Act). He also found that the Nirupan-patra executed by the said Jatindra in favour of his sons, the opposite parties, was a colourable device for the purpose of retaining more lands than what the prescribed ceiling permits. The Assistant Settlement Officer accordingly found that the transfer sought to be effected by the said Nirupanpatra was not bona fide and should as such stand cancelled.

18. Mr. Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the State, contended that the Special Judge based his conclusions on mere conjectures and that accordingly it acted beyond the limits of its authority in reversing the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer whose findings are supported by the materials on record. The learned Special Judge was of the view that if it be found that since February 26, 1953 which is the date of execution of the unregistered schedules of property (Exts. B, C & D) the sons of Jatindra were in possession of the lands it had to be held that the transfer was a bona fide one. There can be no transfer effected by the schedules of properties (Exts. B, C and D). Further the materials relied upon by the learned Special Judge are the said Schedules, some receipts showing payment of Union Board Taxes, Municipal Taxes and receipt granted by the State. Some papers showing that no tax was payable by the said Jatindra Lal Mitra Chowdhury as he was found to be in possession of about 2 acres of land and he transferred other lands in favour of his sons, and a levy order dated May 13, 1964 were filed. It is significant in this regard to note that the receipts showing payment of Union Board Tax, Municipal Tax and payment of rent to the Government are all bearing dates long after the date of said Ni-rupanpatra whereby the transfer of the lands in question were sought to be made in favour of the sons by their father Jatindra. The papers showing that Agricultural income-tax was not payable related to a case of the year 1959-60. So those papers also were in respect of a period long after the said Schedules. The said levy order was dated May 13, 1964, that is, long after the date of the said Schedules. In the circumstances, these are all papers which do not in any way prove possession of the lands in question by the sons of Jatindra at any time before the execution of the said Nirupan-patra. Accordingly, all those papers were of no assistance to the opposite parties so far as the question of possession of the lands by them since the time of the schedules is concerned. Thus, the documentary evidence available could at best prove the possession of lands by sons of Jatindra from after the date of Nirupanpatra. In these circumstances, the Assistant Settlement Officer was wholly justified in concluding that the schedules were antedated documents created for the purpose of proving the alleged story that Jatindra put his sons in possession of the property mentioned in the Schedules from the time of the execution of the schedules referred to above. Further, the unregistered Schedules could in no way have effected transfer of the lands in question. The oral testimony regarding possession of the lands in question by the sons of Jatindra was also wholly unsatisfactory. Aditya Jena who claims to have written the Schedules spoke of the distribution of lands in 1359 B- S. and the commencement of possession in 1360 B. S. He spoke of separate payment of Union Board Tax by the sons but the documentary evidence referred to above shows that this statement was entirely incorrect Further, this witness stated that since the execution of Nirupanpatra Jatindra Babu did not exercise any act of possession over the lands and in course of cross-examination he said that since the execution of Nirupanpatra the sons resorted to separate cooking. Ramprasad who claims to be a bargadar is a resident of a place 6 miles away from the lands in question and does not know names of Jatindra's sons except that of Phani. Further he admitted that his name was not recorded as a bargadar and there was no receipt showing delivery of share produce.