9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the transfer of Berubari Union No. 12 and Chilahati to Pakistan. 2. Implementation of the Ninth Amendment Act. 3. Admissibility and reliability of the map (Ext. A-1) produced by the appellants. 4. Onus of proof regarding the implementation of the Amendment Act. 5. Validity of the proposed transfer of Chilahati. 6. Adverse possession claim regarding Chilahati. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Transfer of Berubari Union No. 12 and Chilahati to Pakistan: The appellants contended that the transfer of Berubari Union No. 12 and Chilahati to Pakistan was illegal. The Supreme Court referred to the Indo-Pakistan Agreements and the Ninth Amendment Act, which provided for the division of Berubari Union No. 12 and the transfer of Chilahati. The Court upheld the legality of the transfer, stating that the relevant provisions of the Ninth Amendment Act were neither vague nor confused and were capable of implementation. 2. Implementation of the Ninth Amendment Act: The appellants argued that the Ninth Amendment Act's language was involved and confused, making it incapable of implementation. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Amendment Act provided clear guidelines for the division of Berubari Union No. 12 and the transfer of Chilahati. The Court emphasized that the division of Berubari Union No. 12 should be made horizontally, starting from the north-east corner of Debiganj Thana, and should be divided half and half, with the southern portion going to Pakistan and the northern portion remaining with India. 3. Admissibility and Reliability of the Map (Ext. A-1) Produced by the Appellants: The appellants relied on a map (Ext. A-1) to support their contention that the division of Berubari Union No. 12 was not feasible. The Court found that the map was neither relevant nor reliable. It was not an official map, and there was no material to vouch for its accuracy. The Court held that the map did not satisfy the requirements of Section 36 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides for the admissibility of published maps or charts generally offered for public sale. 4. Onus of Proof Regarding the Implementation of the Amendment Act: The appellants argued that the onus of proving the implementation of the Amendment Act lay with the respondents. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the onus primarily lay on the appellants to show that the proposed transfer was illegal or unconstitutional. The Court held that the respondents had produced reliable maps, and the appellants had failed to establish their plea that the Amendment Act was incapable of implementation. 5. Validity of the Proposed Transfer of Chilahati: The appellants contended that the village of Chilahati was not covered by the Indo-Pakistan Agreements or the Ninth Amendment Act and was part of West Bengal. The Court rejected this contention, stating that Chilahati was part of Debiganj Thana and had been allotted to Pakistan under the Radcliffe Award. The Court held that the proposed transfer of Chilahati to Pakistan was legal and valid, as it was intended to give to Pakistan what belonged to her under the Radcliffe Award. 6. Adverse Possession Claim Regarding Chilahati: The appellants alternatively argued that Chilahati had become part of West Bengal through adverse possession. The Court rejected this argument, stating that neither the Union of India nor the State of West Bengal made such a claim. The Court held that the appellants could not raise this contention, as it was not pleaded in the writ petition, and there was no evidence to support the claim of adverse possession. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the legality and validity of the proposed transfer of Berubari Union No. 12 and Chilahati to Pakistan. The Court found that the Ninth Amendment Act was clear and capable of implementation, and the maps produced by the respondents were reliable. The appellants failed to establish their plea of illegality or unconstitutionality of the proposed transfer.
|
