Case: ASHIM RANJAN DAS (D) BY LRS Vs. SHIBU BODHAK AND OTHERS

1. One Krishna Pada Supai (for shortwas holder and in possession of land under anKali Charan Pramanick. The land is stated to have been duly recorded in the name of KPS in the Records of Rights of Mauza Jogatipota, P.S. Sonarpur, being R.S. Khatian No.15 of Mauza Jagatipota, West Bengal. In the yearacres of land held by KPS was transferred to two persons – Jitendra Lal Paul (8.26 acres) and Golap Bala Saha Mondal (6.63 acres). The origination of the dispute is the proceedings suo moto initiated by the concerned Revenue Officer under Section 44(2a) of thee 1The Revenue Officer, thus, sought to exercise power under Section 44(2a) of the Acquisition Act suo moto on 7.4.1969. Thereafter he cancelled the tenancy rights of both Jitendra Lal Paul and Golap Bala Saha Mondal vide order dated 12.5.1969. This order was assailed in a WP being Civil Rule No.2915 (W) of 1969 by Golap Bala Saha Mondal alone. The learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court set aside the order dated 12.5.1969 vide order dated 1.6.1973. The rationale for doing so is– though Golap Bala Sahal was in possession of land on payment of rent to the State Government and her name had been mutated on purchase in the year 1962, the proceedings under Section 44(2a) were held without notice to her. Secondly, the Revenue Officer was held to have no jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether the recorded owner is the benamidar for any other person.8. On the other hand, on the demise of Jitendra Lal Paul, the land vested with his widow, Kusumbala Paul, who sold it to Mr. Rathindra Chandra Hore. The appellant, Ashim Ranjan Das, purchased the said land measuring 8.26 acres in 1987 from Mr. Rathindra Chandra Hore, which was originally held by late Jitendra Lal Paul.9. It appears that since only Golap Bala Saha Mondal had filed the earlier writ petition, the State Government took steps qua the land of Jitendra Lal Paul on the premise that the land vested in the State Government and executed Deeds of Ryoti Settlement with regards to the land in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 herein. The first two respondents before us are therefore the patta holders of the land through registered pattas of July, 1980. That is how the title came tot Nos.1 & 2, before the sale to the Appellant.10. In the year 1990, the heirs of Jitendra Lal Paul, i.e., Kusumbala Paul and others filed a writ petition, being C.O. No.8958 (W) of 1990, on the ground that the land cannot be treated to be vested in the State Government. In the said proceedings, Ashim Ranjan Das, the appellant herein, was also joined as Petitioner No. 8. Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein were joined as respondents No. 10 and 13 respectively. In terms of the order dated 17.7.1997, the writ petition was allowed predicated on the earlier order passed on 1.6.1973 by the High Court in terms whereof the process undertaken by theunder Section 44(2a) of the Acquisition Act had been set aside.The Tribunal in terms of the order dated 19.9.2000 directed the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to restore all the land in the name of KPS. The endeavour to seek recall of this order by the State Government was unsuccessful vide order dated 22.3.2001. Consequently, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer forwarded the annulment proposal to thefor taking necessary action in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal. The SDO in turn issued notice to the patta holders for hearing.13. Shibu Bodhak and Tapan Malik respondents No.1 and 2 herein respectively, filed an application in the High Court of Calcutta registered as W.P.L.R.T. No.1045/2001, being an appeal filed u/s 11 of the WB Land Reforms & Tenancy Act and also invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia praying for issuance of a writ in there of mandamus, commanding the respondents to set aside the order dated 19.9.2000 and 22.3.2001 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.401/2000, which was transferred from the High Court, and also directing the respondents to set aside the action of the appropriate authority under The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘WB Land Reformswhich had issued a notice dated 17.4.01 for the cancellation of patta. Mr. Shibu Bodhak and Tapan Malik challenged the order of the Tribunal directing the authorities to cancel the pattas of patta holders inter alia on the ground of absence of opportunity of being heard.14. We may notice here that the WB Land Reforms Act was enacted with the objective as set out in the Preamble, which reads asAct to reform the law relating to land tenure consequent on the vesting of all estates and of certain rights therein [and also to consolidate the law relating to land reforms] in theWB Land Reforms Act sought to vest the rights in the land in the raiyat (a person or an institution holding land for any purpose whatsoever).15. This was opposed by the appellant before us on the ground that11 ofthe vesting in the State Government had been set aside by the High Court on 1.6.1973 albeit at the behest of Golap Bala Saha Mondal, the grant of pattas by the State Government was void ab initio including in respect of the present first two respondents in July, 1980. We may add here that the rights of the appellant are derived from Jitendra Lal Paul for which the writ petition was filed only in theIt appears that in the interregnum period the land was transferred to respondent Nos.1 & 2.was also contended by the appellant that the first two respondents could not complain or make a grievance for not being made parties in Appeal No.401/2000 since the issue of the proceedings under Section 44(2a) of the Acquisition Act already stood resolved and had attained finality.The appellant is aggrieved by this remitting of the matter to the Appellate Tribunal. We may also note that this appeal was filed originally in the year 2004 and 14 years have elapsed since then.

Reasoning: 18. We believe the endeavour of the appellant through the presents has proved to be a fruitless exercise as by now the matter on being remanded would have been adjudicated, after giving opportunities to the first two respondents. The case has had a chequered factual history. No doubt the proceedings initiated under Section 44(2a) of the Acquisition Act in 1969 were set at naught by the order of the High Court dated 1.6.1973, but then only Golap Bala Saha Mondal had initiated the process while no such process was initiated by Jitendra Lal Paul. After the proceedings of the Revenue Officer were set aside on 1.6.1973, it appears that action was taken qua the land of Jitendra Lal Paul and that is how respondent Nos.1 & 2 have registered pattas issued by the State authorities in July, 1980 and claim to be in possession. The appellant purchased the same land in 1987 and possibly at the behest of the heirs of Jitendra Lal Paul, woke up to file the writ petition in the year 1990. The appellant and the respondents herein, were made a party in those proceedings. Predicated on the reasoning of the order dated 1.6.1973, this petition succeeded by the order dated 17.7.1997. It is thereafter that the appellant filed the writ petition, which was transferred to the Tribunal without impleading respondent Nos.1 & 2 as parties in whom the landd, rightly or wrongly. In such a situation the first two respondents, at least, have a right to be heard and that is what has weighed with the High Court while setting at naught the directions of the Tribunal dated 19.9.2000 and subsequent proceedings thereto, vide order in appeal dated 7.5.2004.