1994 (1) TMI 306 - HC - Benami Property

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 14T(5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (W.B.L.R. Act) vis-`a-vis Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act (B.T.P. Act).
2. Whether enquiry into benami transactions under Section 14T(5) of the W.B.L.R. Act is prohibited by Section 4 of the B.T.P. Act.
3. Whether a second proceeding to determine surplus land is barred.
4. Whether review of the previous determination is barred by limitation.
5. Whether the retrospective effect of the amended Section 14T(5) of the W.B.L.R. Act is arbitrary and incompetent.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Section 14T(5) of the W.B.L.R. Act vis-`a-vis Section 4 of the B.T.P. Act:
The court examined the question of repugnancy between Section 14T(5) of the W.B.L.R. Act and Section 4 of the B.T.P. Act. It was argued that Section 14T(5) is repugnant to Section 4 of the B.T.P. Act. The court referred to Article 246 of the Constitution and determined that the W.B.L.R. Act falls under Entry No. 18 of the State List, while the B.T.P. Act falls under Entry No. 6 of the Concurrent List. The court concluded that the B.T.P. Act is not applicable to agricultural land, and thus, there is no repugnancy between the two statutes. The court stated, "The object of the provisions of Section 14T(5) of the L.R. Act is to defeat a transaction made with the object of defeating the ceiling provisions of Chap. IIB of the Act and/or detection and vesting of surplus land over the ceiling area."

2. Whether enquiry into benami transactions under Section 14T(5) of the W.B.L.R. Act is prohibited by Section 4 of the B.T.P. Act:
The court held that the enquiry under Section 14T(5) of the W.B.L.R. Act is not prohibited by Section 4 of the B.T.P. Act. The court noted that Section 4 of the B.T.P. Act prohibits suits, claims, or actions to enforce any right in respect of property held benami, but an enquiry under Section 14T(5) is not a suit, claim, or action. It is merely an enquiry to determine whether there is any land in excess of the ceiling. The court stated, "An enquiry under the provisions of Section 14T(5) of the L.R. Act is clearly neither a suit nor a claim nor an action by or behalf of the person claiming to be real owner of the property for enforcement of his right against a Benamdar."

3. Whether a second proceeding to determine surplus land is barred:
The court rejected the argument that a second proceeding to determine surplus land is barred. The court noted that the earlier proceedings did not include the authority to decide the question of benami transactions, which was later introduced by the amendment to Section 14T(5) of the W.B.L.R. Act. Therefore, the subsequent proceedings could not be considered a second proceeding or a review of the previous determination. The court stated, "The subsequent relevant proceedings by the Revenue Officer concerned for determining the question of Benami could, therefore, hardly be barred as such."

4. Whether review of the previous determination is barred by limitation:
The court held that the review of the previous determination is not barred by limitation. The court noted that the subsequent proceedings under the amended Section 14T(5) of the W.B.L.R. Act are not a review of the earlier proceedings but a fresh proceeding. Even if considered a review, it is not covered by Section 3 of the Limitation Act, which applies to suits, appeals, or applications. The court stated, "The relevant subsequent proceedings for deciding the question of Benami is not a review of the earlier proceedings; but is a fresh proceeding which the Revenue Officer has subsequently been empowered to decide under the amended provisions of Section 14T(5) of the L.R. Act."

5. Whether the retrospective effect of the amended Section 14T(5) of the W.B.L.R. Act is arbitrary and incompetent:
The court rejected the argument that the retrospective effect of the amended Section 14T(5) of the W.B.L.R. Act is arbitrary and incompetent. The court noted that the power of the Legislature to enact laws includes the power to pass laws retrospectively. The court held that the retrospective operation of the amended provisions is not arbitrary or illegal and does not infringe upon the vested rights of a raiyat. The court stated, "The presumption against taking away vested right will not apply in this case inasmuch as under law it is the Benamidar in whose name the property stands, and law only enabled the real owner to recover the property from him which right has now been ceased by the Act."

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the lower court, directing the writ petitioners to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority with liberty to urge all the points taken in the writ petition. The court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum to correct errors of fact or law by a statutory authority. The court stated, "The appeal fails. The impugned order passed by the Court below stands confirmed. The writ Petitioners-Appellants shall be at liberty to prefer appeal to the Appellate Authority with liberty to urge all the points taken in the writ petition in terms of the order of the Court below."