LexSTATE OF WEST BENGAL versus SINGELL TEA AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ STATE OF WEST BENGAL A v. SINGELL TEA AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ORS. '-., MARCH 31, 1993 B .. (KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.) - West Bellgal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953: Sections 4, 5, 6, 44(3rTea Estate-Acquisition of-Notice issued for assessmelll of rel!t-Resisted on the c groul!ds that the estate was !lot i11tem1ediary and that tea gardell was on free-hold lalld-Tem1illatio11 of tellallcy-Order passed by the Co/lee- ro,--Jurisdiction and validity of the order. The appellant-State issued a notification under section 4 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 covering the land comprised in the D tea garden of the respondent-company. The Revenue Officer issued notices to the respondent-company initiating proceedings for assessment of rent. The Company objected stating that it was not an intermediary within the meaning of the Act and since its tea estate comprised of free- hold land, the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to assess the rent under Section E 42(2) of the Act. The .Revenue Officer rejected the contention and fixed the rent at Rs.2,375.94 per year. On revision preferred by the State, the Revenue Officer determined the rent at Rs.8, 765.24 per year. --- The Company preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The appeals were dismissed in default and the restoration applications ~ere also F rejected. Thereafter, the Company preferred applications before the High ~ Court under Section 115 CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution for restoration of the two appeals, and obtained stay of the operation of the Revenue Ofticer's order. During the pendency of the cases, the Additional Deputy Commissioner informed the respondent that inspite of the G repeated reminders the company had not executed the long-term lease for 30 years on pre-payment of the requisite number of instalments of rent and cess. The respondent-company replied pointing out that the High Court had granted the stay order and therefore the matter stood stayed till the disposal of the said cases. Thereafter, the Collector served upon the Company, a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, H 879 880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 2 S.C.R. A 1882 determining the tenancy of the company in respect of the tea garden on the expiry of the specilied date. The company was required to hand over the vacant and peace-fol possession of the tea garden. In reply to the said notice, the company stated that in view of the stay order granted by the High Court no further proceedings be taken. Thereafter the Collector took B over the possession of the tea garden. The applications before the High Court were still pending. However, aggrieved by the order of the Collector taking over its tea garden, the Respondent preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court. Allowing the writ petition, the High Court directed the appellant-State Government and other authorities to deliver the pos- session of the tea garden to the Company within a month. c Aggrieved by the High Court's order, the State as also the West Bengal Tea Development Corporation to whom the possession of the tea garden is transferred by the State, preferred appeals, before this Court. D Disposing of the appeals, this Court, HELD: 1. The Revenue Officer had initially determined the rent at the rate of Rs.2,375.94 per year, but the same was not accepted by the Government and on a representation made by the State Government, the E Revenue Officer had relixed the rent at Rs.8,769.24 per year by order dated 22.8.1968. The Company had challenged the rent relixed at Rs. 8.769.24 and the High Court had stayed the order of the Revenue Officer lixing the rent at the rate of Rs.8,769.24. In view of these circumstances, it was necessary on the part of the Collector to have passed an order of summary settlement as contemplated under Form I Schedule F of the F West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules, 1954 .. The High Court was, then~- fore, right in hOlding that the Collector had no jurisdiction to terminate the tenancy on the ground of non-payment of rent for not executing a lease deed inasmuch as the Collector had not mentioned in the notice terminal· ing the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, that he G was prepared to accept the rent at the rate of Rs. 2,375.94 per year as determined initially by the Revenue Officer. (886 F-H; 887 A,B] 2. In order to do complete justice betwee
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.