STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS versus ASHIT NATH DAS AND OTHERS

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 818 · Decided: 27-01-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS 
V. 
ASHIT NATH DAS AND OTHERS 
JANUARY 27, 1988 
[G.L. OZA AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953: Sections 6(5), 44(2a) 
and 47-Revenue Officers order questioned in appeal before the Add/. 1
District Judge/Competent Authority-Private party obtaining opinion 
of Advocate General and moving application for decision in terms of 
C such opinion-District Judge rejecting plea and fixing the appeal for 
hearing-High Court unber Article 227 quashing the proceedings- , 
Supreme Court-Under Article 136 held decision of High Court without 
jurisdiction-Quashed Lower appellate court directed to dispose of 
appeal. 
D 
Practice and Procedure-Written opinion of Advocate Genera/-
Application to Court by private party that appeal be disposed of in 
accordance with opinion-District Judge. Rejecting application-
Whether valid. 
As a result of the order passed by the High Court, proceedings 
E 
under s. 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 were 
re-opened by the Special Revenue Officer and final orders were passed 
y. 
on 9.2.1982. 
The Ist respondent preferred an appeal against this order before 
the 9th Additional District Judge, the competent authority to hear an 
F 
appeal. Ou l. 12.83 the Ist respondent obtained an opinion of the Advo-
cate General regarding the aforesaid proceedings, and filed that opi 
nion with an application. 
· 
The Additional District Judge passed an order on 25.2.86 reject-
ing the prayer of the Ist respondent that the appeal be disposed of in 
G accordance with the opinion of the Advocate General, but observed that 
the opinion of the Advocate General could only be looked into as the 
ground of appeal on behalf of the Ist respondent. The date of hearing of 
the appeal was fixed on 19.4.86 to suit the convenience of the Advocates 
of the parties. 
H 
A petition under Art. 227 was filed in the High Court against the 
818 
-'i 
,Jo 
. .,,. 
\ 
·~ 
l 
I 
',_, .. , 
.y 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v.A.N. DAS 
819 
aforesaid order by the Ist respondent. The High Court treated this 
petition as a revision application challenging the order passed by the 
Additional District Judge on 25.2.86, and held that the Additional Dis-
trict Judge should have disposed of the appeal in accordance with the 
opinion of the Advocate General, and quashed the proceedings under 
Section 44(2a) as well as the appeal that was pending hearing before the 
Additional District Judge. 
Allowing the Appeal by the State this Court, 
HELD: I. The High Court lost sight of the fact that the only 
grievance against the order· of the 9th Additional District Judge was 
that he refused to decide the appeal in accordance with the opinion of 
the Advocate General. and that he did not give an early date of hearing. 
The question about the suo moto proceedings under s. 44(2a) and the 
validity of the Amendment Act, 1969 and its effect were not considered 
by the appellate authority and in fact the appeal was still pending before 
the 9th Additional District Judge which was yet to be heard and dis-
posed of. [823G-H) 
2. The High Court after exammmg the legal aspect without 
having been raised before it decided the matter so that neither appeal 
remains nor any proceedings remain and in doing so the High Court 
went on without there being proper grounds before it and without 
giving an opportunity to the appellant-State of West Bengal, to have 
their say in this matter. [824A-B) 
3. The order passed by the High Court dated 20.5.87 is, there-
fore, completely without jurisdiction and on matters which were not 
before it and also without giving adequate opportunity of hearing and, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
herefore, deserves to be quashed, and is quashed. [824B-CI 
F 
4. The appeal that w'ls filed by the Ist respondent before the 9th 
Additional District Judge was pending when the High Court passed the 
impugned order, revives. It could not be said that the appeal is disposed 
of as observed by the High Court. It is directed that the appeal which 
was pending before the 9th Additional District Judge shall be heard by 
G 
the Additional District Judge in accordance with law. [824C-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 280 
of 1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.5.1987 of the Calcutta 
H 
820 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1988) 2 S.C.R. 
A High Court in Civil Order No. 1344 of 1987. 
B 
Somnath Chatterjee and Rathin Dass for the Appellants. 
S.N. Kacker, Badar Durrez Ahmed an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.