STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS versus CALCUTTA MINERAL SUPPLY CO. PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 230 · Decided: 06-05-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 9 S.C.R. 230 
A 
STATE OF WEST BENGALAND OTHERS 
B 
v. 
CALCUTTAMINERALSUPPLYCO. PVT. LTD. 
AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2548 of 2006) 
MAY06, 2015 
[M.Y. EQBALAND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
C 
West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules, 1954 -
Schedule 'F' - Clause 1 A and 1 B - Transfer of leasehold 
interest- Liability to pay salami- Held: In case of transfer of 
leasehold interest, the transferree shall not be liable to pay 
salami during the unexpired period of lease - However, after 
D the expiry of the existing period of lease the transferee shall 
be liable to pay salami @ Rs. 15000 per hectare before the 
lease is further renewed - West Bengal Estates Acquisition 
Act, 1953. 
E 
West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953: ss.6(1)(g) 
F 
and 6(3) - Resumption of land as surplus - High Court set 
aside order of resumption - Held: Respondent at all point of 
time held the land within the ceiling limit - High Court rightly 
set aside resumption order. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: Civil Appeal No.2549 of 2006 
G 
1.1. Indisputably, the renewal of lease is a fresh grant 
where the principal lease executed between the parties 
containing a clause that the lease shall have to be 
renewed by giving a fresh grant in accordance with the 
said clause. In the instant case, as per clause 16(a) of 
H the earlier lease deed, the lease is to be renewed for a 
230 
STATEOFWESTBENGAL v. CALCUTTAMINERAL 
231 
SUPPLY CO. PVT. LTD. 
further period of 30 years but subject to the rules and A 
the terms and conditions of the lease and also such other 
terms and conditions as the State Government may from 
time to time consider it necessary to impose and include 
in such renewed lease. Clause 16(a) further provides 
that additional terms and conditions that may be B 
considered necessary by the State Government be 
included but the same shall not be inconsistent with the 
law renewing such lease and shall not have 
retrospective effect. The State Government by 
notification dated 1.6.1994 brought amendment in the C 
Rules by incorporating two more conditions i.e. 
paragraph 1Aand 18. As per the additional condition, in 
case of fresh lease granted by the State in respect of tea 
garden, the lessee shall be liable to pay salami at the 0 
rate of Rs. 15,000/- per hectare of the land leased out. 
However, paragraph 1-B made it clear that in case of 
transfer of leasehold interest, the transferee shall not be 
liable to pay salami during the unexpired period of lease, 
but after the expiry of the existing period of lease the E 
transferee shall be liable to pay salami at the rate of Rs. 
15,000/- per hectare before the lease is further renewed. 
[Paras 29, 30] [250-B-G] 
1.2. Admittedly, before the expiry of the lease in F 
question in 1998, the respond1mt/transferee stepped into 
the shoes of the original lessee in the year 1990. In 1994, 
by notification dated 1.6.1994, an amendment was 
brought in Schedule F of the Rules, in terms of clause 1-
B. Therefore, the respondent shall not be liable to pay G · 
salami during the unexpired period of lease up to 1998. 
The State Government has rightly not made any claim 
for salami for the unexpired period of lease, but for the 
fresh renewal of lease after 1998 which is a fresh grant. 
The demand of salami by State Government for according H 
232 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A sanction for renewal of lease cannot and shall not by 
any stretch of imagination be held to be retrospective. 
The respondent Darjeeling Dooars Plantations is liable 
to pay sa/amiwhich is one of the conditions of the Rules 
for the purpose of renewal of lease. The demand made 
B by the Collector is fully justified. [paras 31, 35] 250-G-H; 
251-A-B; 253-D] 
Civil Appeal No.2548 of 2006 
2. In this case, indisputably the respondent was in 
C possession of the land measuring about 4.54 acres 
comprised in a factory or mill together with structures 
when WBEA Act came into force in 1954. After the said 
Act of 1953 came into effect, the company was allowed . 
to retain all the lands comprised in the factory by the 
D respondent by reason of Section 6(1 )(g) read with 
Section 6(3) of the Act as the State Government was of 
the opinion that the Company required all the lands for 
the purpose of the factory. It is also not in dispute that at 
E all point of time the respondent-company was holding 
the land of factory within the ceiling limit as provided 
under the WBEAAct and West Bengal Land Reforms A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.