LexBINA BASAK & ORS. versus SRI BIPUL KANTI BASAK & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1281 : 2024 INSC 279 Bina Basak & Ors. v. Sri Bipul Kanti Basak & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5525 of 2016) 21 March 2024 [Vikram Nath* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in disallowing the right to title and possession of the family members in the suit property that was allotted by the government as part of rehabilitation programme to the displaced/migrant family as a unit during partition of India? Headnotes Welfare Rehabilitation Scheme – Object of, Explained Held: The rehabilitation programmes are introduced by the Government with the sole aim of re-establishment of the displaced/ migrant families and not for the benefit of any individual – As a part of such welfare policies, the property is recorded in the name of one family member for the purpose of convenience even though the ensuing welfare is meant to be enjoyed by all the family members equally. (Para 1) Welfare Legislation – Abuse of – Suit for Permanent Injunction filed maliciously by the Respondent/Head of the family against the rightful claim of other family members/younger brothers for usurping the entire allotment – Classic example of misuse/abuse of the welfare legislations by the beneficiaries for personal advantage – High Court erred by ignoring the affidavits and communication between the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Deputy Commissioner and the Respondents which is admitted record – The record and admitted facts make it clear that the suit property was allotted under the policy of the Government for the displaced family and not for the individual Held: The record shows that the elder brother/Head of the family, admittedly, gave statement before the concerned authorities during proceedings relating to allotment, in which he admitted 1282 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports that he along with his family members had migrated from East Pakistan to India, and the construction over the plot in question was made out of the joint income of the three brothers, and from the produce of the crops of the land that they held in East Pakistan – It was clearly mentioned that they lived jointly on the suit property and all members contributed proportionately – The Respondents cannot now turn around to claim the entire allotment made treating the family as a unit for rehabilitation to the exclusion of Appellants, by filing the malicious suit. (Paras 3.5, 8 & 9) Suit – Dismissal of – High Court failed to consider that the suit in question ought to have been dismissed once the suit filed by the Respondents to challenge the cancellation of lease deed in the exclusive name of Smt. Hem Prova Basak was withdrawn – The very basis of filing the suit for permanent injunction was no longer in existence. Held: The Respondents laid challenge to the cancellation of the 03.11.1975 lease deed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Siliguri, who allowed the request of Appellants herein for inclusion of their names in the lease deed along with the Respondents – The High Court failed to consider that the suit for permanent injunction was liable to be dismissed given that the suit filed by the Respondent(s) to declare aforesaid cancellation as null, void and illegal was withdrawn during the pendency of the second appeal, as the very basis of filing the suit in question stood eliminated. (Paras 3.7, 3.8, 4, 10) List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Rehabilitation Programmes, Abuse of Welfare Legislation, Malicious Suit, Grab entire allotment, Rehabilitation, Welfare Legislation Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.5525 of 2016 From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2013 of the High Court of Calcutta in SA No. 518 of 2008 [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1283 Bina Basak & Ors. v. Sri Bipul Kanti Basak & Ors. Appearances for Parties Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv., Danish Zubair Khan, Dr. Lokendra Malik, Advs. for the Appellants. Uday Gupta, Sr. Adv., Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Vikram Nath, J. 1. This matter pertains to right to title and possession of a property that was allotted by the Relief and Rehabilitation Department of Government of West Bengal to a family which had come to Siliguri from the then East Pakistan in 1950. Before moving forward with the facts of the case, it is imperative for us to mention that such rehabilitation progra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.