UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SUKUMAR SENGUPTA AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 24 · Decided: 03-05-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
SUKUMAR SENGUPTA AND ORS. 
MAY 3, 1990 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ., M.H. KANIA, 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETIY, K.N. SAIKIA AND 
S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 1, 3, 368 and Constitution 
;.· 
(Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960-Agreements of 1974 and 1982-
Y 
C 
Implementation of-Teen Bigha-Whether involves cession of Indian 
territory 
to 
Bangladesh-Sovereignty 
over 
Dahagram 
and 
Angarpota-Whether arises. 
The Indian Independence Act, 1947 had set up two independent 
dominions known as 'India' and 'Pakistan'. A Boundary Commission 
D 
was appointed to determine the boundaries of the two dominions. As a 
result of its Award, certain areas of India became, after the partition, 
enclaves in East Pakistan. Similarly, certain East Pakistan enclaves 
were found in India. Dehagram and Angarpota were two such Pakistani 
enclaves in India. 
E 
F 
In view of the Award, Berubari Union No. 12 was treated as part 
of the Province of West Bengal. Near about 1952, Pakistan· alleged that 
under the Award the Berubari Union should really have formed part of 
East Bengal. Eventually, in 1958 the Prime Ministers of India and 
Pakistan entered into an agreement settling certain boundary disputes. 
The agreement inter alia provided for the division of Berubari Union 
No. 12 between India and Pakistan and exchange oflndian enclaves in 
Pakistan and Pakistan enclaves in India. 
Donbts arose regarding the implementation of the 1958 
agreement. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by 
clause ( 1) of Article 143 of the Constitution, the President of India 
G referred the matter to the Supreme Court. 
In the light of the opinion rendered by the Supreme Court in Re: 
The Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, [1960] S.C.R. 3 250, the 
Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960 was passed to give effect to 
' 
r 
H 
the transfer of the territories as envisaged in the 1958 agreement. 
,~ 
24 
I 
U.0.1. v. SUKUMAR SENGUPTA 
25 
• By an official notification, 17th January 1961 had been appointed 
as the day for the transfer of the territories of India by way of exchange 
with the territories of Pakistan in the western region. No further 
appointed day was notified so far as the eastern border of India was 
concerned. 
A 
In 1966, writ petitions challenging the validity of the transfer of 
B 
territories as stipulated in the Ninth Amendment were dismissed by this 
Court in Ram Kishore Sen & Ors. v. Union of fodia, l1966] 
1 S.C.R. 430. 
On or about the 16th May, 1974 an agreement was entered into 
between the Prime Ministers of India and Bangladesh. This agreement 
inter alia provided that India will retain half of Berubari Union No. 12, 
which under the 1958 agreement was to be transferred to Pakistan, and 
in exchange Bangladesh will retain the Daha~ram and Angarpota 
enclaves. The agreement further provided that India will lease in 
perpetuity to Bangladesh a small area near 'Tin Bigha' for the 
purpose of connecting Dahagram and Angarpota with Panbari Monza 
of Bangladesh. The 1974 agreement, however remained unimple-
~ented. 
Thereafter, in October 1982 an u11derstanding was reached 
between the two governments in respect of 'lease in perpetuity' by 
India of the said area near 'Tin Bigha' to enable the Bangladesh govern-
ment to exercise her sovereignty over Dabagram and Angarpota. It was 
further agreed that the 1982 agreement would be an integral partofthe 
earlier agreement of 197 4. It was also agreed that the sovereignly over 
the leased area shall continue to vest in India. 
Clause 9 of the 1982 ~greement provided that India would have no 
jurisdiction over Bangladesh nationals in respect of any offence 
committed in the area, and the same shall be dealt with by the 
Bangladesh law enforcing agency only. 
In 1983, Writ Petitions were tiled in the Calcutta High Court 
challenging the validity of the agreement. The learned Single Judge 
dismissed the writ petitions (Sugandhra Roy v. Union of India, A.I.R. 
1983 Cal. 483). The learned Single Judge held that (i) Ninth Amend-
ment in so far as it related to exchange of the enclaves in eastern India 
had not come into being; (ii) implementation of the agreements of 1974 
and 1982 did not involve cession of any Indian territory to Bangladesh; 
. (iii) no exclusive or legal possession of Tin Bigha was being transferred 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G. 
H 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] 3 S.C.R. 
A to Bangladesh; (iv) there was no question o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.