Gopal Shasmal And Others vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

In view of the commonality of issues involved in these 3 (three) writ petitions, we were hearing the same together. The West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal was approached by the petitioners herein with their respective original applications alleging inaction/refusal on the part of the concerned revenue authorities to correct the relevant records of rights on the basis of decrees passed by various civil courts. While dismissing such original applications, the tribunal held that the civil suits so instituted were not maintainable in law having regard to the bar created by section 57B of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereafter the said Act) and, therefore, the revenue authorities were not bound by such decrees.

There have been umpteen number of decisions of this Court, rendered by Division Benches as well as Single Benches, to the effect that the bar to approach a civil court with a suit or an application in respect of the subject matters mentioned in section 57B notwithstanding, a civil suit for declaration of title and incidental relief would be maintainable and based on the decree passed by the civil court, nothing prevents a correction of the erroneous entry in the relevant record of rights. In some of such decisions, it was also held that an incidental prayer for declaration that the record of rights was wrong would not bring the suit within the mischief of section 57B of the said Act.

However, in course of hearing, our attention had been drawn by Mr. Majumdar, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2016) 1 SCC 743 : West Bengal Housing Board v. Pramila Sanfui & ors.

According to him, the ratio of the said decision abrogates the effect of the law laid down by this Court as noticed in the preceding paragraph.

In Pramila Sanfui (supra), the retained lands of an intermediary, which the appellant Board had purchased and settled in favour of a third party, were sought to be included within the suit property of a partition suit by amendment of pleadings. Among others, the Supreme Court framed the following question for an answer:

"12.3. (iii) Whether the inclusion of the property of the Housing Board to the suit instituted in the civil court by way of an amendment by the respondent-plaintiffs which property was conferred upon the legal heirs of late Gangadas Pal as intermediary right-holder under Section 6 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and the institution of suit for partition by the contesting respondents is barred by the provisions of Sections 57-B(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the 1953 Act?"

The answer is found in paragraphs 26, 27 and 28, reading as follows:

"26. The original owner in the instant case, late Gangadas Pal was an intermediary in khas possession of the land in question in terms of Section 6 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. Thus, the learned Subordinate Judge did not have the jurisdiction to entertain any suit with respect to the said property, in the light of the provisions of Sections 57-B(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, which states as under:

****

In view of the fact that the right, title and interest upon the disputed property has been settled in favour of the vendors of the appellant Housing Board, who are the legal heirs of the late Gangadas Pal, who was an intermediary of the land in question in terms of Section 6 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, adding of the property in question to the suit scheduled property in dispute cannot be the subject-matter of partition in view of the express provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 which excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of any rights in such estate as entry in record-of-rights is published. In the instant case, the names of the heirs of late Gangadas Pal were included in the record-of-rights in pursuance of the order passed in the writ petitions in connection with Big Raiyat Case No. 5 of 1967, which order was affirmed by this Court in Sulekha Pal, (2003) 9 SCC 253, referred to supra.

The amendment of the plaint to include the suit property of the heirs of late Gangadas Pal was done in pursuance of the order dated 7-7-2006, wherein the learned Subordinate Judge, Alipore added the land in question which has been sold to the appellant Housing Board, to the schedule of suit lands in Title Suit No. 121 of 1962. The same is erroneous in law and therefore, liable to be set aside as the said order is not binding on the appellant for the reasons stated supra."

We had requested Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, learned senior advocate, to assist us as an amicus curiae. According to him, the decision in Pramila Sanfui (supra) was rendered without examining the scheme of the said Act and it appeared to him to be rather confusing. He urged us to bear in mind that a civil suit in respect of the matters referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of section 57, which were quoted in paragraph 26, could be barred but not a suit for declaration of title which is within the exclusive domain of the civil court, ~ the revenue authorities not being competent to decide title.

Having heard Mr. Mukherjee as well as all other parties, we are of the considered opinion that these writ petitions raise substantial questions of law relating to maintainability of civil suits qua the bar created by section 57B of the said Act. In our opinion, the law needs to be settled once and for all and an authoritative decision by a Larger Bench would facilitate disposal of several litigation pending on the same point before the revenue authorities as well as the tribunal. Such decision would also provide useful guidance for future Division Benches, which could be called upon to decide similar points and, therefore, it would be appropriate to refer these writ petitions to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. It is ordered accordingly.

The petitioners have, however, prayed that till such time the writ petitions are finally decided, their interest ought to be protected.

In W.P.L.R.T. 26 of 2019, admittedly the petitioner is in possession of the plot in question. Such possession shall continue till his writ petition is finally decided.

Insofar as W.P.L.R.T. 74 of 2019 is concerned, the respondents have issued patta in favour of third parties though it is alleged that possession is still with the petitioner. We direct that no effect of such patta shall be given without the leave of the Court.

The petitioners in W.P.L.R.T. 80 of 2018 have suffered an order of acquisition but allege that they are still in possession of the disputed plot. Their prayer is for compensation. If indeed the petitioners are interested in compensation only, we see no reason to grant any interim protection. The respondents shall be entitled to act in accordance with law. However, if the petitioners are enjoying any order of injunction, the parties bound by such injunction shall honour the same.

Office is directed to place the records of these writ petitions before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice immediately.