LexSTATE OF WEST BENGAL versus SUDHIR CHANDRA GHOSE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. _ \ ' 71 STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SUDHIR CHANDRA GHOSE & ORS. November 9,. 1976 [H. R. KHANNA AND V. R. KRISHNA !YER, JJ.) West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act 1953-Scction 2(/i)-Ss. 3, 4, 5-En- cumbrance-Meaning of Interpretation of statutes construction of land reforms statute--Whether amplitudi can be cut down. - Certain estate in a village was acquired under the West Bengal Estates Acqui- sition Act, 1953. Section 3 of the said Act provides that the provisions of that Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract expressed or implied or any instn1ment or any usage or custom. Section 4 authorises the State Government by a notification to declare that all estates and the rights of every intermediary in each such estate shall vest in the State free from all encumbrances. Section 5 provides that on publi- cation of such a notification the estates to which the declaration applies shall vest in the State free from all encumbrances. Section 2(h) defines an encum- brance as under : " 'incumbrance' in relation to estates and rights of intermediaries therein does not include the rights of a raiyat or of an under-raiyat or of a non- agricultural tenant, but shall, except in the case of land allowed to be retained by an intermediary under the provisions of section 6, include all rights or interests of whatever nature, belonging to intermediaries or other persons, which relate to lands comprised in estates or to the pro- duce thereof." The respondents, some of the villagers, filed a suit against the appellant in " representative action claiming that the agrarian community in the village has always been enjoying the right of pasturage over the suit estate and that the said right survived in spite of the notification under the Act. The appellants contended that no such right survived after the publication of the notice and in any event, even if such a right amounted to an incumbrance it came to an end by virtue of section 5 of the Act. According to the respandents the said right was not an incumbrance within the meaning of the said Act and according to the appellant it was an incumbrance. The suit and the appeal filed by the res- pondents were dismissed. The High Coµrt, however, allowed the Second Appeal filed by the respondents . Allowing the appeal by Special Leave, HELD : (1) The great socio-economic objective of the Act if it is to be successful as- a land reform measure requires that all the rights must vest fully in the State_ f74A-Cl (2) From the perspective of land reform objective, a specious meaning is derived by the definition of incumbrance. Ordinarily the court cannot cut down the definitional amplitude given in the statute and there is no reason for depart- ing from the said golden rule. The Legislature used the expression incum- brance in its widest amplitude to cast the net wide so as to catch all rights and interest whatever b' their nature. [74C-G] (3) There is no substance in the contention of tho respondent that the collec- . tive, though uncertain body of villagers cannot be brought within the expres- sion "or other persons". The expression "intermediaries or persons other than intermediaries" embraces all persons, and the villagers who seek to exerci•e the right of grazing over the intermediaries' lands are plainly "other person<". [73-G-H] ( 4) The conclusion of the High Court that the grazing right is a customary right does not carry the case of the respondents any further because the provi- sions of section 3 operate notwithstanding any usage or custom to the contrary. [76-D-F] B c D E F G H A B c D E F G H 72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 2 S.C.R. T_he C~urt observed that the present appeai' raises a human problem and· as 'wazmg' nght is an important aspect of agrestic life the State should try to provide alternative graz:'.lg grounds to villagers when such rigbt8 are taken '1WllV. f76A-Cl CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1753 of 1968 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order/Decree dated the 6th September, 1967 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 689 of 1964) S. C. Majumdar and G. S. Chatterjee for the Appellant. Sukumar Chose for Respondents 1-3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. This appeal, by special leave, from the judgment of\ a Singl0 Judge of the Calcutta High Court, raises a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.