BANSILAL FARMS ETC. versus UMARANI BOSE AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 131 · Decided: 22-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-· 
-·· 
BANSILAL FARMS ETC. 
A 
v. 
UMARANI BOSE AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 22, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition : 
West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 : S. 
3(1)-Nalban Fishery-Requisition-Challenge of-Receiver appointed-
C 
Took possession, but found it was already in the possession of the State 
Government-Mistake rectified by re· delivering-Subsequently compromise 
decree passed by Supreme Coult-Whether the claim of rights of State 
Government protected?-Whether Receiver justified in re-delivering posses-
sion-Held, the rights and interests of State not affected by allotment in 
partition decre1'-No illegality in the act of the succeeding Receiver in rectify-
D 
ing earlier mistake and redelivering possession to the State-Amount of 
compensation to the family members to whom the fishery was allotted in the 
compromise decree to be determined in accordance with law. 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Section 11. 
Res-Judicata-Order of High Coult-Held : Would not operate as 
res-judicata as State was neither a party to the proceeding nor notice issued 
to it before passing the order. 
West Bengal Reforms Act (Amended in 1986}-Sections 2(7) and 
3(A)--Definition of ''Land''--Explained. 
E 
F 
The respondents are members of one Sarkar family who are owners of 
Nalban Fishery. A partition suit was filed by one of the co-sharers. 
Meanwhile, the State of West Bengal requisitioned Nalban Fishery under 
West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948. The respondents G 
who were owners of the Nalban Fishery challenged the requisition order by 
filing a writ petition in High Court. The Writ Petition came to be dismissed 
both by Single Judge and by the Division Bench. 
A Special leave petition preferred before this Court was dismissed 
and the appeal on the partition suit was also finally disposed of. Two H 
131 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A appeals out of the above special leave petition were also disposed of as a 
compromise was arrived at between the parties. While granting special leave, 
this Court has directed to appoint Collector as Receiver. The Receiver sub-
mitted a compliance report to the Court. The Receiver could not actually take 
possession of the Nathan Fishery as it was already in the possession of the 
B State Government. The Receiver brought to the notice of the court the mistake 
committed by him and re-delivered the possession to the Government. 
The State Fisheries Development Corporation issued an advertise-
ment for auctioning the fisheries for a boating complex. The respondents 
filed an application before the High Court on the ground that as per the 
C orders of th• Supr<me Court in partition decree, the Nalban Fisheries 
belongs to them. The High Court directed the Receiver to take o>er 
possessioc from the State Government and give vacant possession to the 
respondent family. An appeal before the Division Bench was dismissed. 
Hence the present appeal. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The Nathan Fishery had been requisitioned much prior 
to the partition decree of this Court and therefore the rights of the State 
to the fishery either by virtue of the requisition order or by any provision 
E of any other statute remained protected and as such the Stat• of West 
Bengal cannot be bound down by the so-called allotment of fisheries in 
favour of some members of the Sarkar family under the compromise 
decree. The fact that the Nalban Fishery had been requisitioned by the State 
of West Bengal in exercise of power under section 3(1) of the West Bengal 
F Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 cannot be disputed since the 
validity of the order of requisition challenged by sarkar family before the High 
Court and in this Court were dismissed. (139-G-H; 140-A-B] 
G 
2. The successor Receiver was fully justified in bringing to the notice 
of this Court that his predecessor had erroneously taken possession of 
Nathan Fishery in contravention of the directions of the court and offered 
his unconditional apology. The Receiver appointed by court is au officer of 
the Court. There is no illegality in the act of succeeding Receiver in rectifying 
the earlier mistake and re-delivering possession to the State of West Bengal. 
The possession taken by earlier Receiver was a symbolic one and factually the 
H State had not been divested of its possession. The succeeding Receiver 
..... 
I 
BANSILAL FARMS v. UMARANI BOSE 
133 
rig

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