WEST BENGAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (FOOD AND SUPPLIES) CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS. versus SMT. SULEKHA PAL (DEY) AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 626 · Decided: 16-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
WEST BENGAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (FOOD AND 
B 
SUPPLIES) CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS. 
v. 
SMT. SULEKHA PAL (DEY) AND ORS. 
APRIL 16, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953; Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 & 10/Rules 
C thereunder: 
Notifications-Acquisition of estate and rights thereof vesting with the 
State-Right of retention of the /and/properties by the intermediarieslsuccessor-
in-interest-Exercise of-Held: Right to protect interest in the lands would be 
available to intermediaries till their dispossession by the authorities in 1hl' 
D manner and by observing formalities as per statuto1y provisions-Since 
ejfective, aclllal and physical possession of the properties continued with the 
intermediaries/heirs, professed taking over of possession by the authority was 
a mere enfi)' on paper, not in conformity with the mandatory procedure laid 
down in the Act/Rules and become unlawful-High Court rightly sustained the 
right of retention of intermediaries enabling them retention of lands of their 
E choice till their dispossession as per provision of/aw-Interpretation of Statutes. 
F 
Words and Phrases: 
'big raiyat' and 'khas possession '-Meaning of in the context of West 
Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. 
A Notification was issued under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the 
West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act vesting all estates and the rights of 
intermediaries (big raiyat) in the State keeping aside certain areas in 
agricultural and non-agricultural land in khas possession of the 
G intermediaries subject to their entitlement as per provisions of law. 
Respondent's predecessor-in-interest, an intermediary, was in possession 
of certain land and after his death a case was initiated in respect of 
intermediaries' rights on such lands. In the meanwhile, appellant has 
purchased the said lands from the successor-in-interest of the said 
intermediaries and taken over possession. Later, State granted a lease in 
H 
626 
WEST BENGAL GOVT. E.MP. (fOOl> AND SUPP.) CO-OP. HOUSINGSOClffi' LTD.1·. SULEKHA.PAL(D~Y) 
62 7 
favour of appellant/purchaser. In the meanwhile, the concerned authority A 
passed an order vesting lands of intermediaries in the State as no option 
for retention of such land was exercised by them. The order was challenged 
by the respondents by filing a writ petition which was allowed by the Single 
Judge of the High Court and affirmed by the Division Bench with slight 
modifications. Hence the present appeals. 
It was contended for the appellants that since legal representatives 
B 
of the intermediaries did not avail of the option to retain lands .of their 
choice as per provisions of law, High Court erred in giving them a fresh 
opportunity to exercise such option; and that since estate of intermediaries 
vested with the State and leased out to appellant/purchaser, successor-in- C 
interest of intermediaries could not exercise such option. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that since they were 
not dispossessed from khas possession of such lands, they could exercise 
their option under the provisions of law; and that it was not open for the 
appellant to re-agitate inter se dispute, if any, in these proceedings when D 
the issue/dispute was left open by the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The objection based on !aches and delay is of no merit. E 
Viewed in the context of the facts of the instant case, the authorities of the 
State have not lawfully and factually dispossessed the petitioners, the heirs 
of the .intermediary, of the khas possession of the lands in question. The 
right to vindicate and protect their interest in the lands in question in terms 
of the enabling provisions of the Act would enure till they are dispossessed 
in the manner envisaged and by observing the formalities contemplated F 
under the statutory provisions. J636-G, H; 637-AI 
1.2. The governing principles and the scheme underlying the 
provisions of the Land Reforms Act as rightly enunciated by the Calcutta 
High Court, in its various decisions cannot be said to lay down any wrong 
or incorrect proposition of law or anything in derogation of the 
interpretation placed by the apex Court as to the scope, extent and nature 
of vesting as well as the nature and character of rights safeguarded under 
G 
the provisions of the Act. The right of the intermediaries to retain certain 
lands and properties under Section 6 of the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.