9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e details thereof, neither the verasity of the same need to be gone into by reason of the peculiar factual situation and the issues involved in the appeal. On the factual score it appears that on 1st November, 1962, a notice under West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 was issued intimating thereunder that lands measuring more or less 4959.27 acres comprising the Tea Estate have vested in the State Government free from encumbrances under Section 5 of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. While some submissions though advanced before the Court in regard to the effect of the statute but we need not dilate on this score since on a proper conspectus of the issue, this Court earlier categorically came to a conclusion that by and under West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 pre-existing right, title and interest in the land stood extinguished and ceased to have effect on and from the notified date i.e., June I, 1956 and stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances (vide State of West Bengal v. Suburban Agriculture Diary Fisheries Pvt. Ltd., [1993] Suppl. 4 SCC 674, and on the wake of the aforesaid, further deliberations on the issue are neither required nor we ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocks or areas which they should surrender to the government without causing loss to the Estate. It was pointed out by Shri Mookherjee, I.A.S., that the Tea Estate would get another opportunity of representing their case before the Government and as such the recommendations of the Settlement Officer, Cooch Behar, should be accepted by the Commit-tee and the Tea Estate given an opportunity to represent their case at the appropriate stage. Significantly, there was a total lull for a period of nearly 4.1/2 years and inaction thus writ large, so far as the State Government is concerned and it is only in June, 1967, another notice was served dated June 21, 1967 intimating that a decision under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act in respect of Rohini Tea Gardens will now be taken and the case of the garden will be taken up on 11th July, 1967. The quantum of land in acres have been to the identical extent namely 1451.40 acres. Incidentally, the records depict that between October 20, 1964 and November 11, 1964, the appellant was served with several notices under Section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962 expressing the intention of taking over by way of requisit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... June, 1967 notice has a categorical reference to Section 6 (3) of the West Bengal State Acquisition act - is it an inadvertent omission? Mr. Ranjit Kumar appearing in support of the appeal rather with an emphasis contended that the omission is otherwise deliberate and an instance of malice in law with which we will deal with slightly later in this judgment. A further factual score depicts that in August, 1969, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Darjeeling Tea Estate (Resumption of Land) Advisory Committee in connection with a proceeding under Section 6(3) of the Act and the petitioner shortly thereafter, however, moved a further Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution being Civil Rule 6128 W of 1968 which, however, was disposed of subsequently with a direction that the proceeding under Section 6(3) be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of the order. Subsequently, another notice was served whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the Self same Samiti and inspite of petitioner's representation, an order was communicated to the petitioner dated April 6, 1973 wherein the petitioner was directed to deliver possession of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellate Court in paragraph 27 of the judgment recorded the following. 27. In course of hearing before the Court and before the Advisory Committee the following facts had emerged from the submissions made and materials placed, as appearing from the records:- (i) Out of 1100 acres of land under tea cultivation, 1029 acres were covered by order of Requisition by which 2542.29 acres of laud of the tea garden was requisitioned. And, when the petitioner was asked to show cause against acquisition of the requisitioned land, it did not lay claim to get back the 1029 acres under tea cultivation; and had instead, had moved the concerned Authority for payment of compensation. It had agreed to the acquisition, which would also be evident from its petition against the Union of India, and its letter dated 25.2.1969 to the Land Acquisition Collector, Darjeeling, on record. (ii) From its objection dated 25.10.77 in the Section 6(3) proceedings it had confined its claim to the land mentioned in items 3 and 4 of the recommendation of the Advisory Committee; and had omitted to make any claim in respect of the land in item No. 2 of the said recommendation, under Military occupation, maki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment of compensation, be deemed to be an intermediary. Provided that the State Government may, if it thinks fit so to do after reviewing the circumstances of a case and after giving the intermediary or the lessee, as the case may be, an opportunity of being heard, revise any order made by it under this sub-section specifying the land which the intermediary or the lessee shall be entitled to retain as being required by him for the tea-garden, mill, factory or workshop, as the case may be. Explanation. - The expression 'land held under a lease' includes any land held directly Under the State under a lease. Exception. - In the case of land allowed to be retained by an intermediary or lessee in respect of a tea-garden, such land may include any land comprised in a forest if, in the opinion of the State Government, the land comprised in a forest is required for the tea-garden. Sub-section 3 therefore, in no uncertain terms allows and permits retention of the land as would be required for the tea-garden. This requirement of the tea-garden, however, is to be assessed by the Stale Government. The statute obviously did place utmost faith and belief on the Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct in accordance with law and in order to act in that direction, State Government shall have to have relevant materials pertaining to the requirements of tea gardens. A person sitting in the office in the metropolitan city of Calcutta cannot, in fact, decide the issue without taking recourse to actuals on the field or on the garden and that is the precise reason as to why the field study was effected on the first occasion by the Settlement Officer and the subsequent deliberations of the Tea Garden Advisory Committee wherein 1451.40 acres have been treated as surplus to the requirement of the tea estate. The power of review in terms of the proviso to sub-section 3 obviously shall have lo be exercised upon materials on record and not de hors the same. And let us, therefore, analyse the materials on record pertaining to the issuance of the order dated 15.12.1977, relevant extracts of which is reproduced as below: And whereas the State Government heard the said Tea Garden on 14th November, 1977, 21st November, 1977 and 28th November, 1977 giving liberty at ample scope of it to make its submission and produce necessary material in support of its case. And whereas it was made clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice. But they prayed on two occasions for shifting of the hearing to mid-April. It was explained to them that no change of date could be allowed, as the proceedings have to be disposed of within 22.4.73 by Government in compliance with the orders of the High Court. Today, during the time of hearing, a telegram reached us, stating that the proprietors would reach Darjeeling by 4 P.M. Accordingly, the committee waited till 5.30 P.M. when Shri G.M. Tandon, representing the proprietors, Shri J.C. Guha, Advocate and Shri J. Pugolia, Advocate appeared. They were given patient hearing till 6.10 PM. The first point taken by Shri J.C. Guha, counsel, was that the notice issued was bad in law. Another point taken by the counsel was that all the lands requisitioned for the Defence Authorities stood de-requisitioned as on today. Thereafter considering all their points the following decisions were taken: The order admittedly records as per latest survey report but the survey report itself has not seen the light of the day and, in fact, whether there was such a mention as regards area under military occupation or not, nobody could vouch-safe for the same including Mr. Roy since the same is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, the Governor is pleased to declare that 3990.17 acres of lands as mentioned and described in the schedule below are surplus to the requirement of the said Rohini Tea Garden and the said tea garden is not entitled to remain in possession of the said 3990.17 acres of land. The Governor is also pleased to declare that 1005.40 acres of land being required for the purpose of the aforesaid tea garden may be retained by it in accordance with the provisions of law. Referring to Annexure 'A' as noticed in 8th recital in the order dated 6th April, 1973, one cannot but come to a definite conclusion that order dated 29th March, 1973 form part of the order dated 6th April, 1973 and the entire reliance is on the order dated 29th March, 1973. No other documentary G evidence have been taken note of, neither placed any reliance nor referred to in the order dated 6th April, 1973 and it is on this count that Mr. Ranjit Kumar's submission that Annexure 'A' should also be read as part of the order cannot but be given credence. In any event, there is no fresh material before the concerned authority H as to the situation existing in the year 1977 end excepting an order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jit Kumar contended that now the time has come for assessment of compensation by the Central Government and as such the State Government in order to deprive the appellant from the compensation amount on the portion of the land acquired under the Defence of India Act read with the Act of 1952 and as such initiated this move, which cannot but be ascribed to be totally malafide and motivated and it is on this score also malice in law has been stated to be apparent on the face of the record. We would be dealing with the aspect of malice little later and before so doing, it would be convenient to note the factual analysis as noticed herein before at paragraph 27 of the judgment under appeal. Since paragraph 27 of the impugned judgment stands noticed herein before in this judgment, we have deliberately avoided setting out the same once again but reference of the paragraph marks are maintained so as to identify the factual discrepancies which reads as below: Re (i)............... Out of 1100 acres of land On the factual score this is not correct by reason of the objection before the Board of Revenue dated 1.11.1977. Re(ii)............... Recommendation of the Advisory Committee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities were look-ing for a suitable site to locate accommodation for Army Supply Crops Battalion around the area at Rohini Tea Estate, Karseong, and the State of West Bengal had forwarded a proposal to the effect that the Army Authorities may take Rohini Tea Estate for the aforementioned purpose. The Army Authorities had initially refused to accept the proposal as the Government of India was opposed to taking over any land covered by the Tea Estate for defence purposes. The State of West Bengal having given an impression that the entire Rohini Tea Estate was defunct, had persuaded the Army Authorities to have the area of Rohini Tea Estate. Upon such suggestion of the State of West Bengal, the Army Authorities had accepted the proposal; and 2532.06 acres of land was thereupon requisitioned under the provisions of Defence of India Act, 1962, and possession thereof was taken over on diverse dates between November, 1964 and May, 1965. The said land is still under requisition. Out of 1,100 acres which was under tea cultivation, 1029 acres under actual tea cultivation was requisitioned and taken possession of by the Military Authorities. At the time of requisition there were more than 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stice Mukherjee of the Calcutta High Court quashing the notice under Section 6(3) of the said Act; (ix) 6.4.73 after the said judgment of the High Court, for the first time in this matter a final order under Section 6(3) of the said Act was passed. Whereas the events narrated above leave an important imprint looks to be very attractive, but the factual situation denotes otherwise since admittedly the final order was under Section 6(3) passed on 22nd August, 1967 for resumption of 1451.40 acres of land in terms of the notice dated 1st November, 1962 and the subsequent proceedings held thereafter. In this context the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government against the Special Leave Petition on 17th August, 1995 may be looked into, wherein the deponent in paragraph 3C has stated: By an order dated 22nd August, 1967 under Section 6(3) of the E.A. Act resumption of 1451.40 acres of land was ordered and possession of the same was delivered. The notice dated 26th August, 1969 cannot possibly be issued other-wise than a notice to reopen the issue. The change of stance as regards the finality of the order has been very strongly criticised by Mr. Ranjit Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a recent decision of this Court in Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, [2001] SCC 2 41, wherein this Court upon reliance on Phipson on Evidence (Fourteenth Edn.) has the following to state as regards estoppels by conduct : In modem times the doctrine has been extended so as to embrace practically any act or statement by a party which it would be unconscionable to permit him to deny. Since there is existing no justifiable reasons for change of quantum of land as mentioned in Section 6(3) notice, the State Government cannot but be said to be bound by its own notice: The doctrine of Estoppel has its fullest play in the contextual facts. Be it noted further that the appellant herein has been all along paying the land revenue and the cesses for the entire land and there was no difficulty in acceptance thereof - while it is true that the factum of acceptance of cess or revenue does not ipso-facto negate the claim, but considering the fact -situation of the matter under consideration it can without any hesitation be recorded that the same is a factor which ought to be taken note of while delving into the matter. Turning attention on to the malice aspect of the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and when the order dated 22.8.67 was passed under Section 6(3); (viii) Proceedings under Section 6(3) which had become final were reopened only to enable the state to make profit at the cost of a citizen; (ix) For the period 1962 to March 1995 the appellants have paid Land Revenue for the entire tea estate; (x) In the present case fresh notices and orders under Section 6(3) were issued only after the appellants had received the notices under Section 7(1) of the Central Act, the reason was clear, viz. to prevent the citizen from getting the market rate for its land. While none of the grounds spoken of in the just preceding paragraph cannot be brushed aside but by reason of our observation as herein before we are not inclined to deal with the issue of malice and motive in detail, suffice, however, to record that accepted methodology of governmental working being fairness and the same is lacking in its entirety in the matter under consideration. Shortly put the situation seems to be the following: The word 'supersession' has a definite connotation in English language and has also its due jurisprudential affect. The Governor of the State issues a notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
