1979 (2) TMI 198 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the defendants were licensees or tenants.
2. Whether the plaintiff was in khas possession on the date of vesting.
3. Applicability of Section 6 or Section 28 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.
4. Interpretation of the transaction (Ex. I) as a lease or a license.

Summary:

1. Whether the defendants were licensees or tenants:

The Trial Court held that the defendants were tenants, not licensees. The first appellate court reversed this, finding the grant to be a license. The High Court, however, held that the lease (Ex.A) would operate as a lease from month to month and was not a license.

2. Whether the plaintiff was in khas possession on the date of vesting:

The Trial Court found that the plaintiff was not in khas possession on the date of vesting (April 14, 1955), thus he could not retain the land u/s 6(1)(i) of the Act. The first appellate court found otherwise, stating the plaintiff-intermediary was entitled to retain the holding u/s 6(1)(i) of the Act.

3. Applicability of Section 6 or Section 28 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953:

The High Court held that Section 28, not Section 6, was applicable. Section 28 applies to land comprising mines directly worked by the intermediary. The Supreme Court affirmed this, stating that the land in dispute was a mine being excavated and removed by the defendant, thus falling within the meaning of Section 28. The Court emphasized that the mine was not being "directly worked" by the intermediary but through a licensee, thus Section 28 overrides Section 6 due to the legislative mandate in Section 27.

4. Interpretation of the transaction (Ex. I) as a lease or a license:

The Supreme Court analyzed the transaction (Ex. I) and concluded that it had all the essential elements of a lease under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, despite being labeled as a license. The Court noted that the transaction granted the right to carry out mining operations and to appropriate the sand, thus constituting a lease. The Court also referenced various legal precedents to support this interpretation.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed, with the Supreme Court affirming that the land in dispute was a mine being worked through a licensee, thus falling under Section 28 of the Acquisition Act, which overrides Section 6. The transaction (Ex. I) was interpreted as a lease, not a license. No order as to costs was made.