SRI PRASANTA KUMAR PAL & ORS versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

Leave granted.

p. 2608

The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the High Court in a Writ Petition . Vide aforesaid order, the High Court had set aside the order dated 11.01.2019 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No.452 of 2008.

p. 2608

Briefly, the argument raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that one Iswar Chandra Pal had executed a registered gift deed dated 07.12.1967 in favour of his sons and daughters. Vide the aforesaid Gift Deed 20.88½ acres of land was transferred. The same was given effect to in the revenue records on 26.05.1969 and the land was transferred in the respective shares of the beneficiaries. Considering the balance land of the said Iswar Chandra Pal, the Government had declared 8.80 acres of land as surplus area and had taken possession thereof. Iswar Chandra Pal died in the year 1975.

p. 2608

Subsequently, after the 2 and 3 Amendment in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 , proceedings under Section 14T(3) read with Sections 14M & 14S of the 1955 Act were initiated to determine the surplus land and vest the same with the state in respect of the land held by late Iswar Chandra Pal. During the pendency thereof, further proceedings under Section 14T(5) read with Section 14T (8) & (9) of the 1955 Act were initiated to find out as to whether the gift deed executed by Iswar Chandra Pal in favour of his sons and daughters in the year 1967 was a benami transaction. Vide order dated 16.06.1997 passed by the Revenue Officer the gift deed executed by late Iswar Chandra Pal in favour of his sons and daughters on 07.12.1967 was held to be a benami transaction. After adding the aforesaid area, surplus area was again redetermined. It was held that out of the total land area of 26.55 acres, the family of late Iswar Chandra Pal shall be entitled to get 8.65 acres of land in non-irrigated area. Balance 17.90 acres of land was declared to be surplus.

pp. 2608–2609

Aggrieved against the order passed by the Revenue Officer, the appellants preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority. Vide order dated 18.12.2007 the matter was remanded to the Revenue Officer, limited to the extent of selection of the area for retention of the land beyond the surplus area.

p. 2609

Aggrieved against this order, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which was accepted vide order dated 11.01.2019 and the order of Revenue Officer was set-aside.

p. 2609

Aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal, the State preferred Writ Petition in the High Court, which was accepted by the impugned order and the matter was remitted back.

p. 2609

The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the observation of the Revenue Officer, as prima facie accepted by the High Court is that the transaction of gift deed dated 07.12.1967 was a Benami transaction is totally erroneous as the amendment came into effect almost two decades after registered gift deed was executed. No one could imagine in 1967 that they need to plan the holding of the land in a way that it is not declared surplus in future. The gift deed was a registered document, which was given effect to in the revenue records on 26.05.1969, much prior to the amendment.

p. 2609

On the other hand, Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the State submitted that the matter had to be taken up suo motu for the reason that Section 14T(5) of the Amendment Act, 1986 empowered the Revenue Officer to re-open old matters, as the amendment had been given retrospective effect. The transaction being Benami, suo motu power was rightly exercised by the Revenue Officer. It is further submitted that a wrong finding has been given by the High Court regarding the Amendment Act, 1986 being not retrospective as the vires of Section 14T(5) of the Amendment Act, 1986 has already been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court in Mrinal Kanti Pal v. State of West Bengal .

pp. 2609–2610

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the paper book.

p. 2610

In our view, the facts of the case clearly suggest that the opinion prima facie expressed by the High Court that the transaction of execution of gift deed by Late Iswar Chandra Pal on 07.12.1967 seems to be Benami is erroneous on the face of it.

p. 2610

The facts on record, which are not in dispute are that the aforesaid gift deed was executed by Late Iswar Chandra Pal on 07.12.1967, gifting some part of his land holding to his three sons and three daughters, leaving substantial portion with him. When calculated in terms of the 1955 Act, an area of 8.80 acres was declared as surplus and the same vested in the State.

p. 2610

The aforesaid registered gift deed dated 07.12.1967 was given effect to in the revenue records on 26.05.1969. It will be absurd to accept the argument that such a transaction can be held to be Benami with reference to an amendment carried in the 1955 Act with effect from 12.05.1989, as no one could possibly dream that the land holding had to be distributed amongst the family members to avoid it being declared as surplus on a later date.

p. 2610

The genuineness of the registered gift deed executed on 07.12.1967 could not be put in question two decades later only because an amendment had been carried out in 1989 with retrospective effect.

p. 2610

If that argument is to be accepted then late Iswar Chandra Pal could have distributed his entire holding amongst his children and saved every inch of land. But the fact remains that even after gifting part of holding to his sons and daughters, still 8.80 acres of land in his hands was found to be surplus, which was declared as such and vested in the State.

p. 2610

In the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, in our view, the High Court has committed an error in setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal by remitting the case for examination afresh as no two opinions could be formed on the basis of the facts as discussed above.

pp. 2610–2611

For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the High Court in W.P.L.R.T. No.31 of 2020 dated 08.09.2021 is set aside and the order of the Tribunal in Original Application No.452 of 2008 dated 11.01.2019 stands restored.

p. 2611

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

p. 2611

Before parting with the judgment, it needs to be mentioned here that all the figures are taken from the pleadings, which contain apparent errors at several places. Result of the case: Appeal allowed. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan

p. 2611