STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. versus SCENE SCREEN (PVT.) LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 502 · Decided: 28-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
v. 
SCENE SCREEN (PVT.) LTD. AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 28, 2000 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Tenancy and land Laws : 
West Bengal Estates' Acquisition Act, 1953 : Section 6(1)(b). 
Retention of land-By Intermediary-Right of-Father of intermediary 
gave two plots of land on lease to a company for building a cinema house-
' 
After the Act came into force the said intermediary submitted Form B 
proposing to retain the land under S.6(1)(b)-However, the company paM 
D rent directly to the State and not to the intermediary-The intermediary filed 
a writ petition for a direction to the State not to recognise the company as 
a tenant and not to accept rent from it-Single Judge dismissed the petition 
on the ground that the intermediary was not in khas possession-However, 
the Division Bench allowed the appeal-Held: S.6(J)(b} does not lay down 
that the intermediary should be in khas possession of the land in order to 
E retain the land-Hence, the Division Bench rightly allowed the appeal. 
Constitution of India, I950: 
Article 226-Jurisdiction-Scope and ambit of-Petitioner himself 
accepted that he was an intermediary-Therefore, High Court should not 
F have embarked upon an inquiry to determine that he is indeed the 
intermediary-Such enquiry is clearly beyond the scope of the prl'Jceeding. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Basic Rule-Literal Construction-If the plain language of the statute 
G is clear and unambiguous it is not open to the court to give a different 
interpretation. 
H 
Words and Phrases: 
"Intermediary"-Meaning of-In the context ofS.6(1) of the West Bengal 
502 
STATE v. SCENE SCREEN (PVT.) LTD. 
503 
Estates' Acquisition Act, 1953. 
A 
The 2nd respondent's father had given two plots of land on lease for 30 
years to the 1st respondent for the purpose of building a cinema house and 
shop rooms. The 2nd respondent became the owner of the said land after the 
death of his father. After coming into force of the West Bengal Estates' 
Acquisition Act, 1953, the 2nd respondent submitted a return in From 'B' B 
proposing to retain the said land as an intermediary under Section 6 of the 
Act. In the record of rights published in 1931 the two plots of land were 
recorded in the name of the 2nd respondent's father as having pucca 
structures therein. In the record of rights prepared under Section 39 of the 
Act the said two plots of land were recorded in the name of the 1st respondent- C 
lessee as a non-agricultural tenant under the 2nd respondent. 
When the 2nd respondent demanded arrears of rent from the 1st 
respondent it replied that the 2nd respondent was no longer entitled to receive 
the rent as the same was being paid directly to the appellant-State. 
Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed a writ petition before the High 
Court for a direction to the State not to recognise the 1st respondent as a 
lessee under the State and not to realise the rent from it. Single Judge 
dismissed the writ petition on the finding that under Section 6(1)(b) of the 
Act the 2nd respondent was not entitled to retain the lands covered by the 
structm;es erected by the 1st respondent. 
D 
E 
Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and held that the 
disputed land was being used for non-agricultural purposes by the lessee since 
1931; that the land did not vest in the State under the Act; that the 1st 
respondent being a non-agricultural user was liable to pay the rent and that 
the 2nd respondent was not an intermediary. Hence this appeal. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The question to be considered is whether the claim for 
retaining the land under the provision of Section 6(1) of the West Bengal 
Estates' Acquisition Act, 1953 is acceptable. For deciding that question it was G 
not necessary for the Division Bench to embark upon the inquiry whether 
the respondent No. 2 was a non-agricultural tenant and on that basis consider 
the further question whether his interest in the land at alt vested under the 
Act. The respondent No. 2 having himself accepted the position that he was 
an intermediary the High Court in the writ jurisdiction should not have H 
504 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A embarked upon an inquiry which was clearly beyond the scope of the 
proceeding. (511-E-G] 
2. The Division Bench was right in setting aside the judgment of the 
Single Judge. Section 6(1)(b) does not lay down that intermediary should be 
in khas possession of th

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