LexSTATE OF WEST BENGAL versus ATUL KRISHNA SHAW AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STAlE OF WEST BENGAL.
A
v.
ATUL KRISHNA SHAW AND ANR.
AUGUST 28, 1990
[N.M. _KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.)
B
West Bengal Estaies Acquisition Act, 1953: Sections 2(i), 4( I),
6( /)(e)-Explanaiion, 44(2a) and 44(3).
'Intermediaries'-Notification. vesting Estates and rights of Inter-
mediaries in the State-Right of Intermediaries to retain title and posses-
C'
sion in respect of 'Tank fisheries'-Crucial date for establishing that
disputed land was used for pisciculture is the period of vesting-
Existence of fishery subsequent to vesting held irrelevant.
Administrative Law: Duty to give reasons-Primary authority-
.Appel/ate authority-Appellate Tribunal reversing order of primary D
authority-Appellate authority should assi!{n its own reasons as to dis-
agreement with reasons and findings of primary authority-Appellate
I
.
Tribunal's order based on conjectures and surmises-Held order is
vitiated by patent error of law apparent on the face of record.
Judicial Review: Appellate authority-Findings of fact based on E
no evidence or based on conjectures and surmises-Power of Court to
interfere, appreciate evidence and record its own findings of fact.
Right to reason is indispensable part of sound system of judicial
rev.,iew.
. Words and phrases: 'Tank fishery'-· Pisciculture'-Meaning of.
The land belonging to the respondent intermediaries comprising
of certain plots stoOd vested in the State of West Bengal by operation of
F
a Notification issued under Section 4(0 of the West Bengal Estates
Acquisition Act, 1953: Since the plots were recorded as 'tank fisheries'
G
(used as pisciculture), they stood excluded from the purview of the
vesting Notification under Section 6(l)(e) of the Act and preserved to
the respondent intermediaries.
Subsequently the primary authority-the Assistant Settlement
Officer-initiated suo moto proceedings by issuing notice to the respon·
H
A
B
c
92
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1990] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
dents under Section 44(2a) of the Act for correction of classification of
lands on the ground that the plots were wrongly recorded as fishery
plots. The respondents objected to reclassification of the lands by con-
tending that in 1952 they were granted Dakhilas to the said land by one
'B', the Principal landlady, and thereafter they have been cultivating
pisciculture on the said plots of the land and conducting fishery busi-
ness. The Assistant Settlement Officer rejected the claim of the respon-
dents and ordered reclassification of the plots. The respondents filed an
appeal before the Tribunal (District Judge) under section 44(3) of the
Act. The Appellate Tribunal reversed the order of the Assistant Settle-
ment Officer and confirmed the original classification of the plots.
Against the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, the State filed a
writ petition in the Calcutta High Court which dismissed the petition in
fi1nine.
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the State: (i)
that the Appellate Tribunal had reversed the findings without consider-
D
ing the validity of the reasons recorded by the Assistant Settlement
Officer; (ii) that the Appellate Tribunal had taken irrelevant factor or
non-existing factors into account and thereby its findings were based on
no evidence and hence vitiated in law.
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that since the
E
Appellate Authority has recorded the findings of fact that pisciculture
was in existence as on the date of vesting the Supreme Court cannot
interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Court,
particularly, when the High Court did not choose to interfere with the
finding.
F
Allowing the Appeal, this Court,
HELD: I. Giving of reasons is an essential element of administra-
tion of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of
sound system of judicial review. Reasoned decision is not only for the
purpose (!f showing that the citizen is receiving justice, hut also a valid
G
discipline for the Tribunal itself. Therefore, statement ofreasons is one
of the essentials of justice. [99C-D]
I. I The appellate authority in particular a trained and experien-
ced District Judge is bound to consider the entire material evidence
adduced and relied on by the parties and to consider whether the
H
reasons assigned by the primary authority is cogent, relevant to the
-
-~-
. ,_
•
'
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. A.K. SHAW
93
point in issue and based on mateExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.