Case: Bina Das Gupta &amp; Others Vs. Sachindra Mohan Das Gupta &amp; Others

2. The Kayemi Taluk No. 154 of Mouja Chaliarjala stood in the name of Brajendra Kumar Das Gupta under a Patta dated 12th November, 1918 T. E. The Taluk comprised of an area of 383 and odd drones or roughly 2,500 acres. Out of the said Taluk, a Dar Taluk was created by Brajendra Kumar Das Gupta on 11th August, 1928 T. E. in respect of 355 and odd drones after deducting 27 and odd drones in possession of the tenants. Subsequently the management of the estate of Brajendra Kumar Das Gupta was taken over by the Court of Wards. The Dar Taluk of the Ishanpur Tea Company was sold in auction and purchased by the Court of Wards in or about 1930. The Court of Wards thereafter agreed to execute a fresh Dar Taluk Patta in respect of 355 and odd drones out of the total area of 383 and odd drones in favour of Sarala Sundari Das Gupta, wife of Brajendra Das Gupta. On the basis of the agreement, Sarala Sundari Das Gupta entered into an agreement in February, 1933, with respondent No. 1 in respect of the Dar Taluk. By that agreement, Sarala Sundari Das Gupta and respondent No. 1 were to enjoy the land and run the tea estate as partners. On 1st February, 1943 T. E. (May 1933) a Patta was granted by the Court of Wards in respect of the said 355 and odd drones to Sarala Sundari Das Gupta and clause 2 of the said patta provided that there was to be a survey to fix the exact extent of the boundaries mentioned. On 13th April, 1944 T. E. (July 1934) Sarala Sundari Das Gupta conveyed the entire Dar Taluk right to respondent No. 1 and in the said deed it was mentioned that the land under the Dar Taluk measuring 355 and odd drones was the balance of 383 and odd drones after deducting 27 and odd drones in possession of the tenants. Respondent No. 1 later on raised a dispute and by his order dated September 20, 1950, the Settlement Officer held that respondent No. l was entitled only to 290 and odd drones and the balance of the land was in the possession of the tenants. It is not necessary, in these appeals, to describe in detail the legal proceedings further taken by respondent No 1 with regard to the claim of the tenants. On May 29, 1951, the Government of Tripura in exercise of its powers under Section 29 of the West Bengal Security Act, 1950 (West Bengal Act 19 of 1950) requisitioned the land described in the Schedule thereto for rehabilitating the displaced persons. More than 1000 acres of land requisitioned was in Kayemi Taluk No. 154 and the possession of the land requisitioned was taken on June 11, 1951. Thereafter, in the year 1953 the said lands were formally acquired under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948. In 1955, land acquisition proceedings were started in respect of the requisitioned lands to the extent of 1020.59 acres. The Land Acquisition Officer made his award on April 6, 1956 and, at the instance of respondent No. 1 and the tenants who were affected, the Land Acquisition Officer made 7 references under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the apportionment of the compensation. The case of Amarendra Chandra Das Gupta before the District Judge was that there was a covenant in the Dar Taluka lease in favour of Sarala Sundari Das Gupta that in case of compulsory acquisition, the whole of the compensation money for land should be received by the superior landlord alone and that Dar Talukdar would not be entitled to any share in the same and that respondent No. 1 was bound by the terms of the lease. Respondent No. 1, however, contended that the covenant, properly construed, only meant that if the lands were acquired by the Government for construction of roads respondent No. 1 would not be entitled to any compensation, but in this case the lands were acquired for the purpose of settlement of displaced persons from East Bengal and therefore the covenant could not be invoked. By his judgment dated April 27, 1959, the District Judge held that respondent No. I was not entitled to any compensation because of the covenant and the compensation awarded to him must be apportioned between the superior landlord and the tenants. Respondent No. 1 took the matter in appeal before the Judicial Commissioner, Tripura. By his judgment dated July 22, 1960, the Judicial Commissioner allowed the appeal, holding that Clause 15 of the Dar Taluka Patta, Ex.1 did not bar the right of respondent No. 1 to get compensation and that Amarendra Chandra Das Gupta could not claim compensation awarded to respondent No. I in respect of the land acquired. The Judicial Commissioner, Tripura accordingly set aside the judgment of the District Judge

Reasoning:
6. Having examined the language of Clause 15 of the patta? Ex., we are satisfied that it does not prohibit the right of the Dar Talukdar to receive compensation for the land acquired by Government in the present case.What clause 15 states is that in cases where the Government makes portions of the land "khas for Government purpose or for public benefit or for construction of roads, the Dar Talukdar will not be entitled to get any reduction of rent in respect of the lands made "khas". It is important to notice that the word "acquired" is not used in Clause 15.In our opinion, Clause 15 on its true interpretation is applicable only when certain portion of the land is made "khas" by the State for construction of roads, paths etc. either for the purpose of the State or for the beneficial interest of the public. The clause does not contemplate acquisition of land by the State for any other purposeIt is clear that Clause 15 contemplates that the Dar Talukdar would continue to pay the rents to the Talukdar in respect of the lands made "Khas" on behalf of the Government and there is no annulment of the Dar Talukdari rights on the land so made "Khas". Nor is it apparent that there is any annulment of the Talukdari rights over the lands so made "Khas". It is not possible to imagine that the parties intended by Clause 15 that even if the entire land was dismissed or a major portion of it was acquired by the Government, the Dar Talukdar would get no compensation from the State but would allow the landlord to get the entire amount of compensation and at the same time the Dar Talukdar would continue to pay the entire rent stipulated without any reduction to the landlord. It is true that Clause 15 states that the Dar Talukdar "will not be entitled to get any reduction of rent in respect of the land made Khas for the above purpose""In our opinion, what the landlord provided by clause 15 was only that the tenant shall not be entitled to claim any compensation from the landlord for such loss of land by acquisition. It is apparent that there is already a provision in Clause 15 that the Dar Talukdar will not be entitled to get any reduction of rent in respect of the land made khas. It is manifest that the last sentence of Clause 15 is tautologous.But in the absence of more clear and precise language we are unable to accept the contention of the appellants that the right of the Dar Talukdar to get compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act has been taken away and extinguished by Clause 15It is not necessary for us to go into this question of law because we have already held that Clause 15 of the Patta on its true interpretation does not prohibit the Dar Talukdar from getting compensation money from Government for the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.