Sitankur Saha & Ors. vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

This writ application is directed against an order dated November 7, 2017 passed by the learned West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal,

1st Bench in connection with a miscellaneous application bearing M.A. No. 128 of 2014 arising out of an original application bearing O.A. No.2890 of

2012(LRTT). The above miscellaneous application was filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the same was dismissed by the learned

Tribunal by virtue of the order impugned to this writ application.

As far back as in 1987, the petitioners filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this High Court for reopening the case

and allowing the petitioners the opportunity of retaining the lands purported to have been vested under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates

Acquisition Act, 1953. The above writ application bearing W.P. No.6722(W) of 1984 was disposed of by an order dated December 4, 1987 setting

aside the order of vesting on the grounds that the respondents acted illegally in not giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before treating the

lands in question vested and the vesting of tank fisheries embankment thereof, was not sustainable in law.

Subsequently, the petitioners approached the learned West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal by filing an original application bearing O.A.

No.4137 of 2002 for recording their names in respect of the lands in question. The above application was disposed of on May 13, 2003 with a direction

upon the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned to treat the above original application as a representation and disposed it of in accordance

with law by passing a reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within the time framed by that order.

-

Thereafter, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned passed an order dated July 12, 2012 rejecting the aforesaid representation of the

petitioners after relying upon his previous order. The petitioners approac-hed the learned Tribunal once again by filing an original application bearing

O.A. No.2890 of 2012 (LRTT). The above original application was disposed of by the learned Tribunal by an order dated April 18, 2013 and the

operative portion of the above order is quoted below:

“This being the position, we direct the applicants to file a fresh BForm showing therein the details of land held in Khas possession by the

applicants throughout the West Beng-al, after complying the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court as well as the direction given by this Tribunal

as mentioned above. It may be mentioned here that the Hon’ble High Court did not restrain the State Authorities to know the details of land held

in Khas possession by the applicants, save and except the suit plots.

If such fresh application of such BForm is filed within 15 days from the date of getting certified copy of this order, B.L. & L.R.O. concerned is

directed to dispose of the same within one month in accordance with law keeping in kind the order of vesting has been set aside by the Hon’ble

High Court. O.A. 2890 of 2012 is, thus, disposed of. Let a pla-in copy of this order duly countersigned by the Principal Officer of this Tribunal be made

over to Ld. Govt. Representative for communication to the authority concerned for information and necessary action and Xerox certified copy of the

order, if applied for by the applications, be delivered subject to payment of requisite court fees.â€​

-

In compliance of the above order, the petitioners filed BForm afresh containing the description for retention of lands lying and situated at

MouzaJagatballavpur, Khatian No.142 with different Block numbers stating the classification of those lands, as Sali, Danga, Danga Patit, Pukur Par,

Garden and Pukur. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned, in his turn, passed an order dated -September 7, 2016 rejecting the prayer

of the petitioners for retaining the lands in question on the following grounds:

(i) According to the settled prop-osition of law, only the intermediaries whose lands had been vested to the State according to the finally published R.S.

Record under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, were eligible to submit choice of retention in Form‘B’ for the purpose of retaining

the land;

(ii) For the purpose of filing BForm in respect of any properties, erstwhile intermediaries or their heirs should have clear and undisputed title with

possession in such land on the date of vesting of the land in question;

-

(iii) The petitioners could not produce any documents showing that they had absolute interest in respect of the land in question. Even they could not

confirm as to whether the partition suit in respect of the lands in question was disposed of or not; and

(iv) The “Bâ€Form was submitted by the petitioners without obtaining the signatures of all the legal heirs of the erstwhile intermediaries. The

petitioners filed the miscellaneous application under reference under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on the ground that it was willful disobedience

on the part of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned to pass the above order. It was rejected by the learned Tribunal by virtue of the

order impugned to this writ application. It is submitted by Mr. Milan Chandra Bhattacharyya, the learned Sr.

Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that after the aforesaid order dated December 4, 1987 passed by this Court in the writ application

read with the order dated May 13, 2003 passed by the learned Tribunal, submission of “B†Form and consideration of the same thereof was not at

all necessary. It is also submitted by Mr. Bhattacharyya that by virtue of the order dated May 13, 2003, the learned Tribunal directed the Block Land

and Land Reforms Officer concerned to consider the representation of the petitioners keeping in mind that in view of the order passed by this Court

setting aside the order of vesting of the land in question measuring 25.51 acres (be a little more or less) of land of different classification, no land stood

vested in the State. Therefore, it was not open for the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned to deal with the aforesaid land while

considering the “Bâ€​ Form.

 Drawing our attention towards the order dated April 18, 2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in connection with another original application, it is

submitted by Mr. Bhattacharyya that consideration of the land in question was not the direction of the learned Tribunal. The land in question was

excluded from the consideration of the above officer concerned. It is also submitted by Mr. Bhattacharyya that the Block Land and Land Reforms

Officer concerned passed an order, which was amounting to circumvent the order passed by the High Court as recorded hereinabove read with the

subsequent orders passed by the learned Tribunal in connection with one writ application and the original application respectively. It is further

submitted by Mr. Bhattacharyya that the impugned order was passed by the learned Tribunal without taking into consideration the provisions of

Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya, the learned Tribunal was under obligation to find out whether the

respondents authority was guilty of committing Contempt of Court’s order under the above provision.

It is submitted by Mr. Chandi Charan Dey, the learned Additional Government Pleader being assisted by Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, the learned

Advocate, that taking into consideration the orders passed by the High Court and the learned Tribunal respectively, there was no bar and/or

impediment on the part of the respondents authority to examine the right and title of the petitioners over the lands in question. It is also submitted by

him that the impugned order was passed granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Appellate

Authority for examining the validity of the order passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned. According to him, there was no

willful disobedience of the orders either passed by the High Court or by the learned Tribunal. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the

respective parties as also after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion, that the commission of Contempt of Court

is a matter, which lies in between the Court and the alleged contemnors. We further find that the learned Tribunal took into consideration the fact of

submission of a report on behalf of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned before it.

 It is noteworthy that the learned Tribunal by it-s order dated April 18, 2013 passed in O.A. No.2890 of 2012(LRTT), directed the petitioners to file a

fresh “B†Form showing therein the details of lands held in Khas possession by them throughout the West Bengal after complying with the order

passed by this Court as well as the direction given by the learned Tribunal on earlier occasion. It was not in dispute that in compliance of the order

passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners filed ‘B†Form afresh before the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned, which

contained the lands lying and situated at MouzaJagatballavpur. The above “B†Form was considered by the concerned Block Land and Land

Reforms Officer in compliance of the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

In view of the above admitted fact, we are of the opinion, that since the above order was not challenged by the petitioners, rather the same was

complied with by filing the aforesaid “B†Form afresh, it was not open for them to turn around and to challenge the scope of considering the

above “Bâ€​ Form by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned in compliance of the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

It may be a fresh cause of action for challenging such order before the competent authority under the law but it does not amount to willful

disobedience of any order or direction upon the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned. Therefore, we do not find any error or irregularity

in the order passed by the learned Tribunal in this regard. Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed. This order, however, will not prevent the

petitioners from challenging the order dated September 7, 2016 passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned in accordance with

law. There will, however, be order as to costs. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties at an early date.