Case: State Of West Bengal Vs. Atul Krishna Shaw And Anr

the appellate authority without discussing the evidence of Mr. Dutta who had stated in his evidence that there are shrubs outside and inside the lands in dispute. It is the specific case of the respondents that they made embankment, but Mr. Dutta finds that there was no embankment to any of the plots. That was also a finding recorded by the Assistant Settlement Officer. There is no discussion by the appellate authority of the evidence given on that count. Though written objections were filed and evidence was adduced by the respondents, neither in the objections nor in the oral evidence tendered by the two respondents or their witnesses it was shown that the lands were used earlier for salt cultivation by erstwhile landholder. Therefore, this is an extraneous factor which the District Judge picked from his hat without any foundation. The solitary revenue receipt produced by the respondents was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer for cogent reasons. The appellant authority being final authority on facts, is enjoined and incumbent upon it to appreciate the evidence; consider the reasoning of the primary authority and assign its own reasons as to why it disagrees with the reasons and findings of the primary authority. Unless adequate reasons are given, merely because it is an appellate authority, it cannot brush aside the reasoning or findings recorded by the primary authority. By mere recording that dakhilas (rent receipts) show that lands are used as pisciculture is a finding without consideration of the relevant material on record. The other finding that respondents applied to the Chief Minister for loan and that it would establish that the loan amount was utilised for developing fishery is also a surmise drawn by the appellate authority. It is already seen that admittedly the respondents have Plot Nos. 2201 and 2235 in which they have been carrying on fishery operations. The application said to have been filed before the Chief Minister has not been produced. The account books of the respondents have not been produced. When the documentary evidence, which being the best evidence, is available but not produced an adverse inference has to be drawn by the Tribunal concerned against the respondents for non-production and had it been produced, it would have gone against the respondents. A police complaint was said to have been made concerning disturbance in the enjoyment of the lands in question. No documentary evidence was produced or summoned. Even if it is done it might be self-serving one unless there is a record of finding of possession and enjoyment by the respondents for fishery. Even then also it is not binding on the State nor relevant in civil proceedings. 11. The contention of Shri Chatterjee that it is the duty of the appellant to produce the record to repudiate the findings recorded by the appellate authority is without substance. In a quasi-judicial enquiry it is for the parties who rely upon certain state of facts in their favour to adduce evidence in proof thereof. The proceedings under the Act is not like a trial in a civil court and the question of burden of proof does not arise. In the absence of adduction of the available documentary evidence, the necessary conclusion drawn by the Assistant Settlement Officer that the loan application made might pertain to Plot Nos. 2201 and 2235 is well justified. The appellate authority is not justified in law to brush aside that finding. The other finding that the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents support the existence of the fishery for a pretty long time is also without discussing the evidence and assigning reasons in that regard. The Assistant Settlement Officer extensively considered the evidence and has given cogent reasons which were neither discussed nor found to be untenable by the appellate authority. Thus, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the appellate tribunal dis-regarded the material evidence on record, kept it aside, indulged in fishing expedition and crashed under the weight of conjectures and surmises. The appellate order is, therefore, vitiated by manifest and patent error of law apparent on the face of the record. When so much is to be said and judicial review done, the High Court in our considered view, committed error of law in dismissing the writ petition in limine. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in particular, when the litigation has taken well over 28 years till now, we find it not a fir case to remit to the High Court or Tribunal for fresh consideration. 12. It is contended that the respondents are entitled to the computation of holding under the Act, since they are possessed of some other lands. We direct that if any determination of total holding of the lands including Plot Nos. 2201 and 2235 any other lands are to be made under the Act or any other Land Reform law singly or conjointly it is open to the appropriate authorities to determine the holding of the respondents in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the respondents and the State after excluding the plots of lands in dispute. 13. Shri Roy, learned counsel for the State repeatedly asserted that the lands no longer remain to be fishery land and became part of urban area around the Calcutta city and building operations are going on. On the other hand the counsel for the respondents asserted to the contrary. We have no definite evidence on record. Therefore, if the lands are still found to be capable of using for fishery purpose and in case the State intends to lease if out for fishing operations, to any third party, as per rules in vogue, first preference may be given to the respondents, subject to the usual terms, as per the procedure prevalent in the State of West Bengal in this regard. 14. Accordingly, we quash the order of appellate tribunal dated March 4, 1971 and restore the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated July 12, 1968.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]7. Admittedly the High Court did not go into any of the questions raised by the appellant in the writ petition. It summarily dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, what we have to read is only the orders of the appellate tribunal and the Assistant Settlement Officer - the primary authority together with the record of evidence. Counsel took us through the evidence to show that the findings recorded by the appellate Judge are based on either no evidence or surmises and conjectures. We have given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions and considered the evidence on record once again. It is indisputably true that it is a quasi-judicial proceeding. If the appellate authority had appreciated the evidence on record and recorded the findings of fact, those findings are binding on this Court or the High Court. By process of judicial review we cannot appreciate the evidence and record our own findings of fact. If the findings are based on no evidence or based on conjectures or surmises and no reasonable man would, on given facts and circumstances, come to the conclusion reached by the appellate authority on the basis of the evidence on record, certainly this Court would oversee whether the findings recorded by the appellate authority is based on no evidence or beset with surmises or conjectures. Giving of reasons is an essential element of administration 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 of showing that the citizen is receiving justice, but also a valid discipline for the Tribunal itself. Therefore, statement of reasons is one of the essentials ofShri Roy, learned counsel for the State repeatedly asserted that the lands no longer remain to be fishery land and became part of urban area around the Calcutta city and building operations are going on. On the other hand the counsel for the respondents asserted to the contrary. We have no definite evidence on record. Therefore, if the lands are still found to be capable of using for fishery purpose and in case the State intends to lease if out for fishing operations, to any third party, as per rules in vogue, first preference may be given to the respondents, subject to the usual terms, as per the procedure prevalent in the State of West Bengal in thisAccordingly, we quash the order of appellate tribunal dated March 4, 1971 and restore the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated July 12, 1968