Ashim Ranjan Das (D) by Lrs. vs Shibu Bodhak & Ors.

5 and 6 – Vesting of the rights of intermediary in the State – Held: The Act provides for vesting of the land of the intermediary as per process with the State Government but an intermediary is entitled to retain possession of any land from the date of vesting the lands falling under the exceptions enumerated in clauses – On facts, KPS was holder and in possession of land under ex-intermediary – Said land transferred to JP and GB – Thereafter, suo moto proceedings initiated by the Revenue officer u/s. 44(2a) and he cancelled tenancy rights of JP and GB – Writ petition by GB – High Court set aside the proceedings of Revenue Officer – Thereafter, demise of JP, whose widow sold the land to one R from whom appellant purchased the same in the year 1987 – In the interregnum period, land was transferred to respondent no. 1 and 2 in 1980 before sale of land to the appellant – State Government took steps qua the land of JP on the premise that the land vested in the State Government and executed deeds of ryoti settlement with regards to land in favour of respondent no. 1 and 2-patta holders of land – In 1990, writ petition filed by heirs of JP on the ground that land cannot be treated to be vested in the State Government – Writ petition allowed and process undertaken by the authorities u/s. 44(2a) set aside – Thereafter, writ petition in 1998 by appellant to mutate his name in the records in respect of land purchased from R – Transfer of the petition to the tribunal – Issuance of direction by the tribunal to the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to restore all the land in the name of KPS – Thereafter, Block Land and Land Reforms Officer forwarded the annulment proposal to the Sub-Divisional Officer for taking necessary action – Issuance of notice to patta holders by SDO – Challenge to, by respondent no.1 and 2-patta holders – Appeal by respondent no. 1 and 2 allowed holding that respondents were patta holders in respect of the land and were not heard by the tribunal before directing cancellation of pattas given to them – Matter remitted to the appellate tribunal – On appeal, held: Endeavour of the appellant through the present proceedings has proved to be a fruitless exercise as by now the matter on being remanded would have been adjudicated, after giving opportunities to the first two respondents – Appellant filed the writ petition, which was transferred to the tribunal without impleading respondent Nos.1 & 2 as parties in whom the land vested, rightly or wrongly – In such a situation the first two respondents, at least, have a right to be heard and this weighed with the High Court while setting at naught the directions of the Tribunal and subsequent proceedings thereto – West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Act, 1997.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The endeavour of the appellant through the present proceedings has proved to be a fruitless exercise as by now the matter on being remanded would have been adjudicated, after giving opportunities to the first two respondents. The case has had a chequered factual history. No doubt the proceedings initiated under Section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, in 1969 were set at naught by the order of the High Court dated 1.6.1973, but then only GB had initiated the process while no such process was initiated by JP. After the proceedings of the Revenue Officer were set aside on 1.6.1973, it appears that action was taken qua the land of JP and that is how respondent Nos.1 & 2 have registered pattas issued by the State authorities in July, 1980 and claim to be in possession. The appellant purchased the same land in 1987 and possibly at the behest of the heirs of JP, woke up to file the writ petition in the year 1990. The appellant and the respondents were made a party in those proceedings. Predicated on the reasoning of the order dated 1.6.1973, this petition succeeded by the order dated 17.7.1997. It is thereafter that the appellant filed the writ petition, which was transferred to the tribunal without impleading respondent Nos.1 & 2 as parties in whom the land vested, rightly or wrongly. In such a situation the first two respondents, at least, have a right to be heard and that is what has weighed with the High Court while setting at naught the directions of the Tribunal & ORS.

dated 19.9.2000 and subsequent proceedings thereto, vide order in appeal dated 7.5.2004. [Para 18] [488-H; 489-A-D]