STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. versus SUBURBAN AGRICULTURE DAIRY & FISHERIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 481 · Decided: 03-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
"· 
SUBURBAN AGRICULTURE DAIRY & FISHERIES PVT. LTD. AND 
ANR. 
MAY 3, 1993 
[DR. T.K. THOMMEN, V. RAMASWAMI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953: 
A 
B 
Sections 4(1). (3). 5 (I). 6. 10. 44-Vesting of lands including fisheries of C 
intermediary- Effect- Etemption-Acceptance of lands of intermediary by 
authorities pursuant to Form 'B' declaration-Retention of possession by 
intermediary-Dispossession when-Supreme Court's direction. 
West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953-Section 44-Record of 
Rights-Revision in appeal-Legality of 
D 
West Bengal Acquisition Act, 1953-Sections 2( h), 6, 44-"lncumbrance 
"Revised", "Tankfisheries"-Construction. 
Respondent -Company fded a writ application in the High Court to 
E 
refrain the appellants from giving effect to the vesting of the lands in question 
and to take possession of tank fisheries lying therein. 
The Single Judge directed an action under sectiiffl 10(2) of the West 
Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 and to take possession of the lands 
pursuant thereto giving an opportunity to the respondents. 
F 
The Division Bench on appeal held that appellants should take action 
under the West Bengal Land R'eforms Act, 1955 within a period of two months 
of its judgment, failing which the respondents would be at liberty to deal with 
and dispose of the lands and until then the appellants were restrained to take 
possession of the lands. 
The Single Judge and the Division Bench found thatthe Revenue Officer 
initiated proceedings to revise the old Jama oflands as he found from record 
of rights that lands were classified as 'Beel' (marshy land) and the appeal of 
the respondent under Section 44(3) of the Act was allowed holding that the 
lands being 'tank fisheries' olef Jama was to be maintained. 
481 
G 
ff 
A 
B 
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS· 
[199313 s.c.R. 
The present appeal by specia] leave was fd~d against the judgment of the 
Division Bench of the High Court contending that by operation of sections 4 
and 5 of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, fisheries being one of the 
interests that stood extinguished and vested in the State Govt. free of all 
incumbrances with effect from 1.6.1956, the respondents lost right, tide and 
interest therein; that since the respondent failed to make an application in 
form 'B' within the specified time expressing his intention to retain the lands, 
1he entire lands including tank fisheries stood vested in the State; that as per 
the entries in ~he record of rights the lands were only Beel (Marshy lands)and 
not tank fisheries and, therefore, even the exercise of the option to retain 
possession was not available; that since the respondent raised a dispute, the 
C 
Single Judge rightly directed an enquiry under section 10(2) and to take 
action pursuant to. its result under section 10(1); that the Division Bench 
committed manifest error in treating that the decision of the Tribunal under 
section 44(3) relating_ to Jama to be final and the lands to be tank fisheries and 
that the respondent was entitled to retain khas possession with all right, title 
and interest therein as an owner; and that the direction given to initiate the 
D 
action under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 within the specified 
period and on failure thereto liberty given to the respondent to alienate the 
lands was beyond the relief sought in the writ petition. 
E 
F 
G 
The respondents submitted that thay purchased the leasehold rights in . 
1937 from the earliest purchaser of the lands who purchased the same from 
the original Zamindar and since then the respondents were using the lands as 
tank fisheries; that when notification under section 4 was issued, the lands 
. were being used as tank fisheries; that despite its vesting, by operation of 
section 6(2), the respondent had right to retain possession as an owner; and 
the action for dispossession under section 10(1) was illegal; that the liability 
of dispossession of the resp~ndent from the lands would arise only if the 
possession was found to be unlawful; and that the Division Bench, therefore, 
rightly directed to initiate prodceedings under the West Bengal Land Re-
forms Act and to take action thereunder. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1. By operation of sub-sec, (1) of Sec. 5 the estate and all the 
rights of intermediaries including fisheries in the estate shall stand deter-
mined and ceased and stood vested in the Sta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.