Aftabuddin Ahmed and Others vs St. of W.B. and Another

R.N. Dutt, J.—Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 filed the suit. Plaintiff No. 3 was the father of the plaintiffs 1 and 2. Plaintiff No. 3 executed a heba-bil-ewaz in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 on May 8, 1953 in respect of the disputed lands which appertained to raiyati holdings. With the vesting of raiyati holdings in the State of West Bengal there was an enquiry u/s 5A of the Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and the transfer was found not bonafide and so the transfer stood cancelled. The plaintiffs thereafter filed the present suit for a declaration that the transfer was bonafide. Both the courts have held that the transfer was not bonafide and so dismissed the suit. Mr. Bhattacharjee takes a short point in this appeal. He submits that though section 5A makes 5th day of May, 1953 the effective date, so far as raiyats and under-raiyats are concerned the effective date should be the date of notification u/s 49 of the Act. He refers to the decision in (1) Prahlad Chandra Dey Vs. Gobinda Chandra Dey and Others, . There S. K. Sen, J. held that the effective date in section 5B of the Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, in regard to raiyati holdings should be taken to be the date of notification u/s 49 of the Act, namely, 10th April, 1956. If the effective date in section 5A of the Act is for similar reasons deemed to be the 10th April, 1956, the purpose of the provision of section 5A will become almost nugatory in regard to the raiyati and under-raiyati holdings because in that view of the matter the enquiry contemplated u/s 5A will have to be confined in respect of transfers between the 10th April, 1956 and the 14th April, 1956, which is the date of vesting in respect of the raiyati and under-raiyati holdings. The Legislature could not have intended this. Section 5A was not in the Act when the Estates Acquisition Act first came into force. But section 5A was inserted with retrospective effect, that is, section 5A should be deemed to have been in the Act when the Act first came into force. Similarly, sections 49 and 52, as they now stand, were not in the Act when the Act first came into force. They were substituted in 1955 but with restropective effect, that is, these should be deemed to have been in the Act from the date when the Act first came into force. When the Legislature made these sections retrospective with effect from the day when the Act first came into force it must be said that the date mentioned in section 5A must be the effective date not only in respect of intermediaries whose estates vested in the State u/s 5 but also in respect of intermediaries whose estates vested u/s 52 of the Act, that is, raiyats and under-raiyats. When the words of section 5A specifically mentioned a certain date there is no scope to hold that in respect of raiyats and under-raiyats the effective date would be some other date because otherwise the raiyats and under-raiyats would be adversely affected. The Legislature must have considered this aspect of the matter when it made sections 5A and 52 retrospective from the date when the Estates Acquisition Act first came into force. The decision of S. K. Sen, J. relates to the facts of that case and does not relate to section 5A of the Act and as such that decision does not govern the facts of this case. I hold that the effective date in section 5A of the Act in respect of raiyats and under-raiyats also is 5th day of May, 1953. The instant transfer was after 5th day of May, 1953 and both the courts have found that the transfer was not bonafide. Mr. Bhattacharjee has not disputed the finding of fact.

There is therefore, no substance in the appeal which fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this Court.