LexSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. versus RATNAGIRI ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-[2009] 2·s.C.R. 982 r A STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. I ,,.. ' v - RATNAGIRI ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. & ORS. ~ Civil Appeal No. 369-370 of 2005 B FEBRUARY 24, 2009 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 : s. 6(3) proviso - Applicability of - After enactment of s. ,>- . c 14Z of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 - Held: Power under the proviso continues with the State even after enactment of 1955 Act - 1955 Act does not repeal the proviso to s. 6(3) - Events subsequent to passing of the order uls. 6(3) f- cannot be seen for exercising the power un8er the proviso as_ D it will lead to widespread chaos -An interpretation leading to widespread chaos should be eschewed - Interpretation of \.. statutes. ' ss.6(1)(g), 6(3) and its Proviso - Retention of acquired l ~ land by intermediary uls 6(1)(g) ~ Permissibility - Held: E Retention under the provision is not permissible unless and r until there is an order passed u/s. 6(3) -On :facts, as no order passed u/s. 6(3), retention not permissible. Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 32 and 226 - Writ "'.i }- jurisdiction - writ petition under Article 32 challenging validity ~- F of State Act - Held: Petitioner advised to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226. The -questions for consideration in the present ,___ •, ' appeals are whether proviso to s. 6 (3) of West Bengal G Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 continues to be in operation >- after the enactment of s. 14Z of West Bengal Land . Reforms Act, 1955 which has been given retrospective ..... operation; and whether the retention of the land uls. 6(1 )(g) of 1953 Act, by the intermediary was permissible. H 982 I i-- I STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. V. RATNAGIRI 983 ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. & ORS. The writ petition was filed for declaring the A amendment brought about in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 as unconstitutional in so far as they relate to s. 4 and s. 14Z (1) of the Act. Disposing of the appeals and dismissing the writ 8 petition, the Court HELD: 1.1. The power under the proviso to Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 -.-:: .. continues with the State Government even after .the ~ enactment of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 or c Section 14Z thereof. There is nothing in the 1955 Act or in Section 14Z thereof which states that on its enactment the power of the State Government under the proviso to Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act will cease to exist. [Para 17] [992-F-G] 1.2. Section 59 of the 1955 Act repealed certain earlier D 1 Acts and Regulations in Bengal. 1955 Act specifically mentions which earlier Acts it intends to repeal. There is no provision in the 1955 Act which repeals the proviso to Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act. Nor can such a repeal be implied. Hence, the High Court is not correct in saying E that the proviso to Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act is repealed by necessary implication after the promulgation of the IL.. 1955 Act, and in particular Section 14Z thereof. [Paras 18, • 19, 20 and 21] [992-G-H; 993-A-C] " 1.3 The correct interpretation of the proviso to s.6(3) F is that once an order is passed by the State Government under Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act, thereafter the power under the proviso to Section· 6(3) of the Act can be exercised only if (i) some fraud or misrepresentation was made to the State Government for obtaining the order G L under Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act, or (ii) there was a ~- genuine and important mistake made by the State Govern- ment in passing the order under Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act. However, the power under the proviso to Section 6(3) cannot be ex.ercised on the ground that after the order of H 984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. 'T A the State Government was passed under the main part of Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act, some subsequent develop- ;,.- ments have taken place. [Para 23] [993-D-F] 1.4 lf a provision similar to proviso to Section 6(3) B were to apply, it will follow that if the dwelling house of the erstwhile intermediary is demolished after the date of vesting, the State Government can resume ~uch land. ~ Such a view will only lead to large scale chaos because there must be thousands of such homestead fands and J•· c many of such homesteads may have been demolished pm subsequent to the date of vesting. An interpretation which leads to widespread chaos should be eschewed.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.