Sri Prasanta Kumar Pal vs The State Of West Bengal

REPORTABLE 2025 INSC 783 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. of 2025 [ARISING OUT OF SLP [C] NO.2675 of 2022]

SRI PRASANTA KUMAR PAL & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Respondent(s)

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning

the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the High Court1 in a Writ

Petition2. Vide aforesaid order, the High Court had set aside the

order dated 11.01.2019 passed by the Tribunal3 in Original

Application No.452 of 2008.

3. Briefly, the argument raised by the learned counsel

appearing for the appellants is that one Iswar Chandra Pal had

executed a registered gift deed dated 07.12.1967 in favour of his Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2025.05.26 16:25:05 IST

sons and daughters. Vide the aforesaid Gift Deed 20.88½ acres of Reason:

1

High Court at Calcutta 2 W.P.L.R.T. No.31 of 2020 3 West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal 2

land was transferred. The same was given effect to in the revenue

records on 26.05.1969 and the land was transferred in the

respective shares of the beneficiaries. Considering the balance

land of the said Iswar Chandra Pal, the Government had declared

8.80 acres of land as surplus area and had taken possession thereof.

Iswar Chandra Pal died in the year 1975.

4. Subsequently, after the 2nd4 and 3rd5 Amendment in the

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 6, proceedings7 under Section

14T(3) read with Sections 14M & 14S of the 1955 Act were initiated to

determine the surplus land and vest the same with the state in

respect of the land held by late Iswar Chandra Pal. During the

pendency thereof, further proceedings8 under Section 14T(5) read

with Section 14T (8) & (9) of the 1955 Act were initiated to find out as

to whether the gift deed executed by Iswar Chandra Pal in favour of

his sons and daughters in the year 1967 was a benami transaction.

Vide order dated 16.06.1997 passed by the Revenue Officer the gift

deed executed by late Iswar Chandra Pal in favour of his sons and

daughters on 07.12.1967 was held to be a benami transaction. After

adding the aforesaid area, surplus area was again redetermined. It

was held that out of the total land area of 26.55 acres, the family of

4 Came into force on 07.08.1969 5 Came into force on 12.05.1989 6 Hereinafter ‘the 1955 Act’ 7 Case No. 52 of 1996 8 Case No. 3 of 1997 3

late Iswar Chandra Pal shall be entitled to get 8.65 acres of land in

non-irrigated area. Balance 17.90 acres of land was declared to be

surplus.

5. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Revenue

Officer, the appellants preferred appeals 9 before the Appellate

Authority. Vide order dated 18.12.2007 the matter was remanded to

the Revenue Officer, limited to the extent of selection of the area for

retention of the land beyond the surplus area.

6. Aggrieved against this order, the appellants preferred

an appeal10 before the Tribunal, which was accepted vide order

dated 11.01.2019 and the order of Revenue Officer was set-aside.

7. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal, the

State preferred Writ Petition2 in the High Court, which was accepted

by the impugned order and the matter was remitted back.

8. The argument raised by learned counsel for the

appellant is that the observation of the Revenue Officer, as prima

facie accepted by the High Court is that the transaction of gift deed

dated 07.12.1967 was a Benami transaction is totally erroneous as

the amendment came into effect almost two decades after

registered gift deed was executed. No one could imagine in 1967

that they need to plan the holding of the land in a way that it is not

9 Appeal Case No 16(T)/02 & Appeal Case No. 17(T)/02 10 Original Application No. 452 of 2008 4

declared surplus in future. The gift deed was a registered

document, which was given effect to in the revenue records on

26.05.1969, much prior to the amendment.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, learned senior

counsel appearing for the State submitted that the matter had to be

taken up suo motu for the reason that Section 14T(5) of the

Amendment Act, 1986 empowered the Revenue Officer to re-open

old matters, as the amendment had been given retrospective effect.

The transaction being Benami, suo motu power was rightly

exercised by the Revenue Officer. It is further submitted that a

wrong finding has been given by the High Court regarding the

Amendment Act, 1986 being not retrospective as the vires of

Section 14T(5) of the Amendment Act, 1986 has already been

upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court in Mrinal Kanti Pal v.

State of West Bengal11.

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the paper book.

11. In our view, the facts of the case clearly suggest that the

opinion prima facie expressed by the High Court that the transaction

of execution of gift deed by Late Iswar Chandra Pal on 07.12.1967

seems to be Benami is erroneous on the face of it.

11

(2000) SCC OnLine Cal 513.

5

12. The facts on record, which are not in dispute are that the

aforesaid gift deed was executed by Late Iswar Chandra Pal on

07.12.1967, gifting some part of his land holding to his three sons

and three daughters, leaving substantial portion with him. When

calculated in terms of the 1955 Act, an area of 8.80 acres was

declared as surplus and the same vested in the State.

13. The aforesaid registered gift deed dated 07.12.1967 was

given effect to in the revenue records on 26.05.1969. It will be

absurd to accept the argument that such a transaction can be held to

be Benami with reference to an amendment carried in the 1955 Act

with effect from 12.05.1989, as no one could possibly dream that the

land holding had to be distributed amongst the family members to

avoid it being declared as surplus on a later date.

14. The genuineness of the registered gift deed executed on

07.12.1967 could not be put in question two decades later only

because an amendment had been carried out in 1989 with

retrospective effect.

15. If that argument is to be accepted then late Iswar

Chandra Pal could have distributed his entire holding amongst his

children and saved every inch of land. But the fact remains that even

after gifting part of holding to his sons and daughters, still 8.80 6

acres of land in his hands was found to be surplus, which was

declared as such and vested in the State.

16. In the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, in our view,

the High Court has committed an error in setting aside the order

passed by the Tribunal by remitting the case for examination afresh

as no two opinions could be formed on the basis of the facts as

discussed above.

17. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed.

Consequently, the impugned order passed by the High Court in

W.P.L.R.T. No.31 of 2020 dated 08.09.2021 is set aside and the order

of the Tribunal in Original Application No.452 of 2008 dated

11.01.2019 stands restored.

18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

19. Before parting with the judgment, it needs to be

mentioned here that all the figures are taken from the pleadings,

which contain apparent errors at several places.

……..………………………...J. [RAJESH BINDAL]

…………………….………….J. [NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 08, 2025.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO.20673 of 2022

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. … Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

PRASANTA KUMAR PAL & ORS. …Respondent(s)

ORDER

1. In view of the detailed order passed in Civil Appeal

No.___ /2025 @ SLP [C] NO.2675 of 2022, arising from the

same impugned order, we find no case is made out for grant

of leave in the present petition.

2. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly,

dismissed.

3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

………………………………...J. [RAJESH BINDAL]

…………………….………….J. [NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 08, 2025.