‘Distress’ under the act should be interpreted broadly: Supreme Court

contemplates in substance return of land to a small land­ raise funds to tide over financially distressed condition. For required to make an application to the authority prescribed under the said statute. We shall refer to that statute the provisions relating to restoration of the land already conveyed by him. The nature of land to which the said Act provision land means agricultural land and includes homestead tank well and water channel. To be eligible for the transferor cannot exceed two hectares. The 1973 Act as “in distress” or “in need of money for the maintenance of himself and his family” or “for meeting the cost of his on 26th April 1968. The transferors of the land forming 9th August 1974. At that point of time the 1973 Act as down the conditions under which a transferor could seek “4. Procedure for effecting restoration of alienated under circumstances.—(1) Where before the the transferor holding not more than 2 hectares of land in the aggregate transferred the whole or any part of his land by sale to any person being the transferee then if­ of the year 1967 being in distress or in need of money for the maintenance of himself and his family or for meeting the or oral for reconveyance of the land transferred to the transferor the date of such transfer or within two years from the date of commencement of this Act whichever period expires later make an application in the prescribed manner to the Special Officer having transferred is situate for restoration of 2) On receipt of such application the 3) On the date fixed in the notice for hearing such application or on any be adjourned by the Special Officer the If after considering such evidence and hearing the parties the Special Officer is satisfied that such transfer was made by purpose referred to in clause of sub­ sectionor as the case may be within the time and under the conditions transferor and directing the transferor to not exceeding ten and by such dates as of the consideration which was actually such transfer together with interest on such amount at the rate of four per centum per annum from the date of his receipt of such consideration and the amount of improvements effected to such land allowed by the Special Officer and determined by him in the manner the manner prescribed of the net income any compensation Provided that the first of the instalments section shall be payable within three expiry of the year 1967 and the date of commencement of this Act and includes subsequent transfer such subsequent iii) the expression “consideration which transferor” shall mean where there was any evidence adduced by a transferor varying adding to or subtracting from the terms of the sale deed to prove the actually paid by the transferee to the 6) When the special Officer makes an Public Demands Recovery Act 1913 Bengal Act III of 1913) against the shall notwithstanding anything contained in such order become due and payable at once and on such payment being made certificate shall be set aside and the amount paid shall be applied towards remain due satisfaction of the decree or the certificate for valuable consideration or a usufructuary mortgage such payment shall be made to the transferee and the person in possession of such land as a c) in other cases such payment shall be Provided that if such land is subject to a bonafide mortgage other than a was executed after the transfer of such Officer shall direct that such instalments shall first be paid to the mortgagee until the amount due under the mortgage as and that the thereafter any such 7) the amount ordered to be paid by a charge on the land in respect of which order under sub­section is made is after the date on which such order takes effect under sub­section of section 5 sold in execution of a decree or of a certificate filed under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act 1913 against the transferor to whom restoration had been made or otherwise transferred by him the whole of the amount payable under such order then remaining due shall notwithstanding anything contained in such order at once become due and payable and the person to whom such amount is payable shall be entitled to 2. Malina Bala DeySmt. Bebi and Renuka 26th April 1968 for a consideration of Rs. 9 500 ­. So far as behalf of her two minor sons and also a daughter. The land also spelt as Baby on certain documents) wanted the sale her sister. The third vendor also deed that the sale was being effected for meeting the of the paper book at page 50). On the very same date the Dey purchased another piece of immovable property for a two sons and daughter of Renuka Dey and legal time period by when the agreement was to be executed as “Now I enter into an agreement with you to you the property described in the property inspite of receiving from you Rs 9500 ­ at a time within the aforesaid period then you by this Ekrarnama shall get the aforesaid property executed and Ekrarnama shall be cancelled and after be entitled to make any claim for The transferors applied for restoration of the subject jurisdiction over the subject land. It was urged before the deed of conveyance was coupled with a reconveyance agreement. Before the set of proceedings giving rise to this appeal had originated there was an earlier round. The proceedings in the earlier round had also reached the High Court at Calcutta in its constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Special Officer as also by the appellate authority. The writ 8574of 1983. By a judgment delivered on 18 th March 1993 was remanded to the Special Officer. Hearing the matter on remand the Special Officer sustained the application for restoration by an order passed on 14th March 1995. Corollary directions were passed for refund of the consideration money the 1973 Act the Special Officer found that at the time of effecting sale Renuka Dey was unemployed widow and employment of the son of Malina Bala Dey was also not land was originally purchased for maintaining the family and at a reduced price to meet further debt. The Special Officer two years from 26th April 1968 was also recorded in the said order which was made on 14th March 1995. The appeal of the purchaser against the restoration order was also dismissed by the Sub­Divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer. The appellate authority sustained the finding of the and Tenancy Tribunal which heard the “To establish that the transferor was applicant has again baselessly submitted that the husband of Renukabala was a railway employee that Renukabala was a school teacher that the son of Malinabala that transferors purchased on the same date 1.33 acre of land. All these points after due consideration rejected them as an appointment as a teacher after the transfer was made. The son of laminable in the family. Because of the marriage of further debt. Hence they had to sell the lands in the urban area. With half the consideration money they purchased the on for more than 4 years. They were It is therefore evident that the applicant has not only raised the same authorities have rightly decided the questions and there is no illegally High Court at Calcutta and their petition was registered as main point which was urged on behalf of the purchaser respondents was that the land in question was not be applicable so far as the subject­transaction was Tribunal or the other statutory fora never addressed the question as to whether the land in question came within the purview of the 1973 Act or not. The High Court also went Scheme of the said Act deals with of his family or meeting the cost of his cultivation. In the present case we feel none of the said criterions has been The deed which was prepared for the land was required to be sold for the purpose of meeting the loan incurred for the purview of the said Act and on the day the petitioner had purchased certain agricultural land. This is an undisputed If that be so it cannot be said to be a provide relief to the Agriculturists in respect of distress sale or the like and obviously it cannot be called a distress decision of this Court in Prosad Kumar Dhara vs. Kamala Kanta Dikshit & Ors supra) cited by Shri Basu is fully the case of Prosad Kumar Dhara v. Kamala Kanta Dikshit AIR 1982 Cal 532]. In this judgment while analysing the definition of land it was held by the Division Bench that the been defined to be limited to agricultural land. Referring to homestead land the Division Bench took the view that any and every structure on non­agricultural land. The High “In view of the fact the basic question which we have found has remained Tribunal and as the same decides a preliminary issue. We feel the order passed which has been brought before Accordingly we allow the application Order dated 13.06.2003 passed by the applicants for restoration or their legal representatives. Our “2(2) ­ “land” means agricultural land and includes homestead tank well and water­ Mr. Bhattacharya learned advocate appearing for the appellants has argued that the definition of land includes homestead tank well and water channel. So far as the land tank as also highland trees as part of fishery. We quote below the said schedule from Annexure R­1 of the counter affidavit Under District and District Registry Burdwan P.S. and Sub­Registry Kalna Pargana Raipur within Kalna Municipality J.L. No. 166 Mouza Madhuban Touzi No. 135 R.S. No. 948 Khatian No. 47 Jot Khatian Nmo. 53 Dag No. 156 Pond named Galakata Pond total 24 satak thereof and the annual tax of it is 2.31 paisa total 1.59 shatak tax 6.765 paisa Government of West Bengal thorough 9. Mr. Bhattacharya has sought to justify the restoration order on the ground that alienation was effected for was coupled with an agreement for reconveyance which was proved before the fact­finding statutory fora. He has cited a decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Chitta Ranjan that liberal construction of the word “distress” ought to be given. We quote below the relevant passage from this got divergent meanings. But where the purpose of the Act is to give relief to the poor raiyats the word distress must have than two hectares of land obviously does not include the cost of either of a costly tractor or the cost of diesel or electric pumps for the purpose of irrigation. In West Bengal the cost of cultivation varies from one district to another. It depends the availability of the labour facilities of irrigation cost of menures and similar powers have been conferred by the Act upon the Special Officer to meet the exigencies of the situation.” In a later judgment Habu Mondal v. Collector Bankura 11. On behalf of the respondents who are successors of the original purchaser Mr. Abhishek Manchanda learned advocate only the people engaged in agriculture who had to resort to come within the purview of the statute. In support of this has been utilised for purchasing another agricultural land would not per se disentitle a transferor from invoking the restoration provision contained in the 1973 Act provided of course the transaction sought to be repudiated otherwise fora. Fresh purchase of land covering little over half of the consideration sum received from sale of the subject­land was also for the purpose of maintaining the necessities of the did not constitute distress sale. The reasons cited by the vendors for selling the land definitely show that they were in need of money. Under Section 4 (a) of the Act three enable a land holder to seek restoration of land already and the vendors’ reasons for transfer spelt out in the conveyance deed itself in our view comes within the broad terms expressed in the statute. We set aside this part of the finding of the High Court. We however are unable to find nature or character of land was never gone into. In our view In Prosad Kumar Dhara it was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that homestead land when included Law by the jurisdictional High Court. The said judgment has pond or tank should also have some connection with agricultural land or the occupation of the transferor as 14. We find from the schedule to the deed of conveyance dated description of the land. It is a fact that on a reading of the orders of the Special Officer Appellate Authority and the three fora. All the three fora proceeded on the basis that the question at this stage. But that point was argued before the suited from the restoration proceeding particularly since this point does not appear to have had been raised before the crucial point which should have been determined before 15. For this reason we modify the judgment under appeal and giving opportunity of hearing to the opposing parties or their learned advocates as the case may be. We also request the the said statute the order of the authority of first instance passed on 14th March 1995 shall stand revived and the Tribunal shall make appropriate order for refund of the sum received as sale proceeds with interest upon making computation in terms of the statutory provisions. We have be taken. If on the other hand it is found that the land did not right or claim under the 1973 Act for restoration of the land conveyed and the deed executed on 26th April 1968 shall 17. The appeal stands partly allowed in the above terms Pending applications if any shall stand disposed of. Parties to

Summary: The Supreme Court shed light upon the meaning of ‘land’ and ‘distress’ under the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973. The appeal was partly allowed by the bench comprising of J. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. Aniruddha Bose and J. Krishna Murari in the case of Smt. Renuka Dey &amp; Ors. v. Naresh Chandra Gope (D) THR. LRS. &amp; Anr.  [Civil Appeal No. 6264 of 2013].   The appellants, original owners of the land, conveyed their land to the respondents by a deed executed on 26th April, 1968 for a specific consideration amount. The particular land included parts of pond(tank) and a garden. In the deed itself, the reasons for such a transfer were specified as repayment of loan, meeting educational costs and purchase of another property. The appellants urged that along with this deed, there was a simultaneous deed executed for the reconveyance of the said property between the same parties. The transferors applied for restoration of the property in 1974, which stood rejected by the Special Officer as well as the High Court of Calcutta (under constitutional writ jurisdiction). Civil writ petition was filed by the appellants before the HC who remanded the matter to a Special Officer who sustained the application of restoration. The purchasers invoked writ jurisdiction on the ground that the land at question was a homestead non-agricultural land and there was no sign of distress, hence the Act was not applicable relying on the case of Prosad Kumar Dhara v. Kamala Kanta Dikshit [AIR 1982 Cal 532].  The learned counsel for the appellants argued before that SC that “the deed that what was sold was a pond, which can mean tank, as also highland trees as part of fishery”. He justified restoration on the grounds that the deed was coupled with the agreement of reconveyance and that distress is to be given a “liberal construction” as held in Chitta Ranjan Ghish v. State of West Bengal [(1976) s CLJ 180].  The SC, taking all the previous orders, facts and cases into consideration, stated that “Under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, three situations have been contemplated as alternative conditions to enable a land holder to seek restoration of land already conveyed by him. These are “in distress” or “in need of money for the maintenance of himself and his family” or “for meeting the cost of his cultivation”.