State Of West Bengal vs Hari Mohan Dana (D) By Lrs. & Ors

Hari Mohan Dana (D) by LRs. & Ors. .... Respondents.

JUDGMENT

HARJIT SINGH BEDI J,

1. The facts leading to this appeal are as under:

2. The original land owner Kulada Prosad Dana and his wife

Anila Dana, the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents,

held about 26.65 acres of agricultural land which included a

homestead. On 12th June, 1970 Anila Dana transferred 7.19

acres of land to her three sons and on 13th February, 1971,

Kulada Prosad Dana transferred a further 14.55 acres of land

to his sons. Both transfers were by way of registered gift 2

deeds. As per Section 14T (3) of The West Bengal Land

Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), it was

incumbent upon the Revenue Officer to determine the surplus

area held by Kulada Prosad Dana's family but as no return

had been filed by the landowners as provided in the Act,

proceedings were initiated on 2nd December, 1977 by the

Revenue Officer under Section 14T (3) thereof. Kulada Prosad

Dana died in the meanwhile and his three sons - ( the present

respondents ) filed Title Suit No. 422 of 1977 in the Court of

the Munsif at Burdwan for a declaration of title and

permanent injunction. The appellant- State of West Bengal

filed a written statement raising various pleas including a

challenge to the gift deeds made by Kulada Prosad Dana and

Anila in favour of their sons. By judgment and order dated

29th July, 1981, the Munsif decreed the suit and issued a

direction that no order for vesting of the land be passed and

that the total area held by the family was within the

permissible area of 25 acres. The State of West Bengal,

thereafter filed Title Appeal No. 207 of 1981 in the Court of

the District Judge, who set aside the order dated 29th July, 3

1981 and dismissed the suit. The Revenue Officer who had

earlier been restrained by an interim order once again started

with the proceedings on 22nd January, 1985 and vide order

dated 8th February, 1985 held that out of the total land area

belonging to the family, land measuring 14.29 acres was in

excess. This area was declared as vesting in the State and

possession thereof was accordingly taken. The land owners-

respondents being aggrieved by the judgment aforesaid, filed

Second Appeal No. 337 of 1985 in the Hon'ble High Court at

Calcutta, and by its judgment dated 24th July, 2002, the High

Court set aside the order of the District Judge dated 12th

December, 1984 and restored the judgment and decree dated

29th July, 1981 of the Munsif, and held that there was no

surplus area in the hands of the family. The order dated 24th

July, 2002 has been impugned by the State of West Bengal in

this appeal.

3. At the very outset, Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, the learned

senior counsel for the appellant - State has pointed out that

by virtue of Section 61 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil

Court was barred in such matters though admittedly this 4

objection had not been taken at any stage in the civil

proceedings or even in the Special Leave Petition filed in this

Court. He has pointed out that as this was a matter relating

to jurisdiction, the appellant - State had filed I.A. No.7 in the

present appeal to urge this additional ground and if this

objection was to be taken into account, the very initiation of

civil proceedings by Title Suit no. 422 of 1977 were nonest

and outside the purview of the civil court. He has pointed out

that assuming for a moment that this Court was not inclined

to take cognizance of this question, he was willing to argue the

case on merits so as to show that the order of the High Court

was wrong.

4. Mr. S.B. Sanyal, the learned senior counsel for the

respondent has, very fairly, not seriously disputed Mr. Gupta's

submission based on Section 61 of the Act but has pointed

out that as this plea has been raised at a very belated stage,

liberty should be given by this Court (and without any

argument as to limitation to be raised by the other side) so

that the order of the Revenue Officer dated 8th February, 1985

could be challenged in appeal.

5

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

gone through the matter carefully. It does appear from the

trend of the arguments before us that the jurisdiction of the

civil court in a matter pertaining to determination of surplus

area under the Act is barred under Section 61 thereof.

However, as the State had never raised this plea at any stage

up to the Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court and has

raised it only as additional ground and as an afterthought

after the SLP had been filed, we are of the opinion that the

land owner - respondents must be given a chance to challenge

the correctness of the order dated 8th February, 1985.

6. We, thus, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned

order of the High Court dated 24th July, 2002 and order that

the civil proceedings initiated by Title Suit No. 422 of 1977

must be held as being barred under Section 61 of the Act. We

are informed that an appeal against the order dated 8th

February, 1985 would be maintainable under Section 14T(7)

read with Section 54 of the Act. In this background if an

appeal is filed by the land owner - respondents within 60 days

from the date that a certified copy of this order be supplied to 6

them, the State of West Bengal shall not raise the plea of

limitation.

7. As evident from the discussion above, we have not made

any comment on the merits of the case. We, thus, leave it

open to both parties (with the exception of the rider relating to

the plea of limitation) to raise all other pleas open to them.

There will be no order as to costs.

................................J. (Dalveer Bhandari)

................................J. (Harjit Singh Bedi ) New Delhi, Dated: October 23, 2008