ASHIM RANJAN DAS (D) BY LRS. versus SHIBU BODHAK & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 05-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
479
ASHIM RANJAN DAS (D) BY LRS.
v.
SHIBU BODHAK & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3932 of 2009)
APRIL 05, 2018
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953: ss. 44(2a), 2(i), 4,
5 and 6 – Vesting of the rights of intermediary in the State – Held:
The Act provides for vesting of the land of the intermediary as per
process with the State Government but an intermediary is entitled to
retain possession of any land from the date of vesting the lands
falling under the exceptions enumerated in clauses – On facts, KPS
was holder and in possession of land under ex-intermediary – Said
land transferred to JP and GB – Thereafter, suo moto proceedings
initiated by the Revenue officer u/s. 44(2a) and he cancelled tenancy
rights of JP and GB – Writ petition by GB – High Court set aside
the proceedings of Revenue Officer – Thereafter, demise of JP, whose
widow sold the land to one R from whom appellant purchased the
same in the year 1987 – In the interregnum period, land was
transferred to respondent no. 1 and 2 in 1980 before sale of land to
the appellant – State Government took steps qua the land of JP on
the premise that the land vested in the State Government and executed
deeds of ryoti settlement with regards to land in favour of respondent
no. 1 and 2-patta holders of land – In 1990, writ petition filed by
heirs of JP on the ground that land cannot be treated to be vested
in the State Government – Writ petition allowed and process
undertaken by the authorities u/s. 44(2a) set aside – Thereafter,
writ petition in 1998 by appellant to mutate his name in the records
in respect of land purchased from R – Transfer of the petition to the
tribunal – Issuance of direction by the tribunal to the Block Land
and Land Reforms Officer to restore all the land in the name of KPS
– Thereafter, Block Land and Land Reforms Officer forwarded the
annulment proposal to the Sub-Divisional Officer for taking
necessary action – Issuance of notice to patta holders by SDO –
Challenge to, by respondent no.1 and 2-patta holders – Appeal by
respondent no. 1 and 2 allowed holding that respondents were patta
[2018] 3  S.C.R. 479
479
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
holders in respect of the land and were not heard by the tribunal
before directing cancellation of pattas given to them – Matter
remitted to the appellate tribunal – On appeal, held: Endeavour of
the appellant through the present proceedings has proved to be a
fruitless exercise as by now the matter on being remanded would
have been adjudicated, after giving opportunities to the first two
respondents – Appellant filed the writ petition, which was transferred
to the tribunal without impleading respondent Nos.1 & 2 as parties
in whom the land vested, rightly or wrongly – In such a situation
the first two respondents, at least, have a right to be heard and this
weighed with the High Court while setting at naught the directions
of the Tribunal and subsequent proceedings thereto – West Bengal
Land Reforms and Tenancy Act, 1997.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The endeavour of the appellant through the
present proceedings has proved to be a fruitless exercise as by
now the matter on being remanded would have been adjudicated,
after giving opportunities to the first two respondents. The case
has had a chequered factual history. No doubt the proceedings
initiated under Section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estate
Acquisition Act, 1953, in 1969 were set at naught by the order of
the High Court dated 1.6.1973, but then only GB had initiated
the process while no such process was initiated by JP. After the
proceedings of the Revenue Officer were set aside on 1.6.1973,
it appears that action was taken qua the land of JP and that is how
respondent Nos.1 & 2 have registered pattas issued by the State
authorities in July, 1980 and claim to be in possession. The
appellant purchased the same land in 1987 and possibly at the
behest of the heirs of JP, woke up to file the writ petition in the
year 1990. The appellant and the respondents were made a party
in those proceedings. Predicated on the reasoning of the order
dated 1.6.1973, this petition succeeded by the order dated
17.7.1997. It is thereafter that the appellant filed the writ petition,
which was transferred to the tribunal without impleading
respondent Nos.1 & 2 as parties in whom the land vested, rightly
or wrongly. In such a situation the first two respondents, at least,
have

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.