2002 (3) TMI 910 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Vesting of rights and interests in leased lands under The West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.
2. Entitlement of intermediaries to retain land under Section 6 of the Act.
3. Legality of reopening the preparation of record of rights after 38 years.
4. Applicability of Section 6(1)(b) versus Section 6(1)(g) of the Act.
5. Validity of proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 (ULC Act).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Vesting of Rights and Interests in Leased Lands:

The appellants argued that under The West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, all rights of intermediaries vested in the State free from all encumbrances except lands under acquisition proceedings before vesting. The High Court disagreed, holding that the respondents were entitled to retain the land in question under Section 6(1)(b) of the Act.

2. Entitlement of Intermediaries to Retain Land:

The High Court concluded that Section 6(1)(b) was applicable, allowing the respondents to retain land comprised in or appertaining to buildings and structures owned by the intermediary. The appellants contested this, arguing that the land being tenanted, the respondents were not entitled to retain it under Section 6(1)(b) and that Section 6(1)(g) should apply as the land was comprised in a mill.

3. Legality of Reopening the Record of Rights:

The appellants reopened the record of rights after 38 years, citing defects and anomalies in the original records. The High Court found this action unjustified, noting the absence of allegations of fraud or misrepresentation in the original preparation of records. The Court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be used to reopen settled matters, especially after such a long period.

4. Applicability of Section 6(1)(b) versus Section 6(1)(g):

The High Court held that Section 6(1)(b) applied, allowing retention of land appertaining to buildings and structures owned by the intermediary, even if tenanted. The appellants argued for the application of Section 6(1)(g), which pertains to land comprised in mills, factories, or workshops. The Court found no evidence that a mill stood on the land at the date of vesting and emphasized that Section 6(1)(b) does not require the intermediary to be in khas possession, unlike other clauses in Section 6(1).

5. Validity of Proceedings under the ULC Act:

The appellants challenged the proceedings under the ULC Act, claiming they were ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The High Court rejected this, noting that the appellants had previously contended that the proceedings under the ULC Act were not genuine, a stand that was rejected by the competent authority and the High Court. The High Court emphasized that the appellants' attempt to reopen the matter was not bona fide and aimed at overreaching the Court.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court's judgment upheld. The Court found no merit in the appellants' contentions and emphasized the improper and delayed attempt to reopen settled matters. The respondents were entitled to retain the land under Section 6(1)(b), and the appellants' actions were deemed far from bona fide.