9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubsequent decision of a superior court in any other case it shall not be a ground for review of such judgment merely because a subsequent judgment of the single judge has taken contrary view. That does not confer jurisdiction upon the tribunal to ignore the judgment and direction of the High Court given in the case of the Appellants. The High Court also fell in error in affirming the order of the tribunal, hence these orders cannot be sustained in law - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Civil Appeal Nos. 9844-9846 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 23051-23053 of 2009) - - - Dated:- 17-10-2014 - M.Y. Eqbal And Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ. For the Appellant : Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Devashish Bharuka, Vaibhav N. and Ranjan Mukherjee, Advs. For the Respondents : Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv., Soumya Chakraborty and Saakaar Sardana, Advs. for Anip Sachthey, Adv. JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals by special leave are directed against the common judgment and order dated 20.3.2009, passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta in W.P.L.R.T. Nos. 728 of 2002, 429 of 2002 and 430 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication No. 1650-I, Ref/2A-58/70 dated 13.2.1971 as under: In exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (President's Act No. 3 of 1971), the Governor is pleased hereby to appoint the 15th day of the February, 1971, as the date on which the provisions of Clause (i) of Section 7, and Sections 13, 15 and 17 of the said Act shall come into force in the whole of the State of West Bengal. 7. In the year 1976, following three vesting proceedings Under Section 14-T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 were initiated: - No. 252/1976 against Mahabir Prasad Maskara, father of the Appellants - No. 244/19766 against Appellant No. 1 - No. 280/1976 against Appellant No. 2 8. Vide order dated 02.08.1983 and 17.8.1983, Proceedings No. 244/1976 and No. 280/1976 were disposed of with a finding that Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 herein were minors and hence, the lands held by them were taken into account as lands of their father Mahabir Prasad Maskara. Proceedings No. 252/1976, pertaining to Mahabir Prasad Maskara, was disposed of vide order dated 24.8.1983, declaring 38.8591 acres of agricultural lands to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eforms Act to the transferred territories. 13. The aforesaid order of the order of the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court of Calcutta, which has upheld the order of the Tribunal holding that the decision of Ganga Dhar's case (supra) is a binding precedent and having not been assailed, has attained finality. Hence, the present appeals by special leave. 14. We have heard learned senior Counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the papers placed before us including the decision rendered in Ganga Dhar's case (supra). 15. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants, submitted that in 1976 vesting proceedings were initiated Under Section 14-T of Chapter II-B of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and in August, 1983 Case No. 252/1976 was disposed of against the Appellants declaring 38.8591 acres of agricultural land to vest in the State, against which, the Appellants approached the High Court by filing a petition titled as Pradip Kumar Maskara v. State of West Bengal and Ors. Learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 8.11.1992 allowed quashing of the vesting proceedings on the ground that there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en held as under: 7. In the present case, the preliminary objection has been raised at the threshold. In addition, it is an inescapable fact that the judgment rendered in Eastern Coalfields Ltd.. has been rendered in ignorance of the earlier judgments of the Benches of co-equal strength, rendering the same per incuriam. Therefore, it cannot be elevated to the status of precedent.... 18. It is further contended on behalf of the Appellants that the Tribunal wrongly notes that Ganga Dhar judgment was rendered by a Division Bench though it was passed by a Single Judge. On the issue of notification, it has been submitted that after Chapter II-B was inserted by the West Bengal Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 with effect from 13.2.1971, no notification was issued Under Section 1(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 enforcing the aforesaid inserted provisions contained in Chapter II-B in the areas which were transferred from State of Bihar to the State of West Bengal vide the West Bengal transferred Territories (Assimilation of Laws), 1958. The notification dated 24.06.1967 and 26.09.1969 relied upon by the Respondent-State cannot support their contention since Chapter II-B (ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CR No. 3466 of 1984. The said writ petition was allowed by the Calcutta High Court in terms of Order dated 25.11.1994 and the said order of vesting was quashed on the ground of non applicability of Chapter IIB of the aforesaid Act. Similar order was passed in another writ petition in the Calcutta High Court in CR No. 2001(W) of 1985. The said orders were not challenged by the State either before the Division bench of the High Court or before this Court and it attained finality. 23. After the aforesaid order was passed by the High Court, the Appellants moved an application along with the copy of the order before the Tribunal for a direction to correct the revenue record by entering their names. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the decision of the High Court in Gangadhar Singh's case (supra) is binding precedents and the earlier judgment of the High Court is no longer a good law. For better appreciation, the order dated 20.2.2002 is reproduced hereinbelow: 20.2.2002 Heard the Learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Govt. Representative at length. Challenging the order of vesting passed under Chapter-IIB of the West Bengal Land Refor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by order dated 20.2.2002 dismissed the application holding that the division bench of the High Court in subsequent decision in Gangadhar Singh's case held otherwise. 26. At the very outset, we are of the view that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to differ with the decision given by the Calcutta High Court in the writ petition filed by the Appellants. The tribunal further committed grave error in following the decision in Gangadhar Singh's case treating it to be a Division Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court when as a matter of fact the decision in Gangadhar Singh's case was decided by a Single Judge of the High Court. Even the judgment passed in the Appellant's writ petition filed in 1984 was neither considered nor distinguished. 27. In the back ground of these facts, in our considered opinion, when the judgment rendered by the Calcutta High Court in the case of the Appellants and the said decision having not been quashed or set aside by a larger bench of the High Court or by this Court, the tribunal ought not to have refused to follow the order of the High Court. 28. It is well settled that even if the decision on a question of law has been reversed or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
