http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ARUN KUMAR BASU & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.  Leave granted. This appeal, by special leave, arises  from the  judgment of the Calcutta High Court made on March 5, 1993 in Appeal No.465/91.      The admitted  position  is  that  the  respondents  are liquidators of erstwhile West Bengal Provincial Company Ltd. Proceedings have been placed before us to establish that the Bengal Government  had acquired  the land applying Chapter 8 of the  Land Acquisition  Act  (1  of  1894)  and  delivered possession of  the land  admeasuring 30 miles for laying the railway line.  The specifications  of the land attached were given in Schedule-B to the acquisition proceedings.      The notification under sections 4(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition  Act, 1953  (for short,  the ’Act’)  was published on  April 16, 1954 w.e.f. April 15, 1955 notifying the vesting of the estate in the State. The consequence have been provided  in Sections  4(1), 5  and 6 of the Act with a non-obstante clause   excluding  the  applicability  of  any other  provisions    under  Section  3  of  the  Act.  As  a consequence, the  preexisting right, title and interest held by the company and vested in its liquidators for sale of the property, stood divested by operation of Section 4(1) of the Act and  vested  in  the  State.  The  consequences  of  the notification and  vesting have been considered by this Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Suburban Agriculture Dairy & fisheries  Pvt. Ltd.  [(1993) Supp. 4 SCC 674]. This Court had held thus:      "Admittedly,  the   Act  came  into      force   on   February   12,   1954.      Notification  under  Sections  4(1)      and  (3)   was  published   in  the      prescribed  manner  specifying  the      date of  vesting of  the estate and      had come  into effect  from June 1,      1956. By   operation of sub-section      (1) of Section 5 the estate and all      the   rights    of   intermediaries      including fisheries  in the  estate      shall stand  determined and  ceased      and stood  vested in the State free

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    from       all        incumbrances.      "Incumbrance" defined under Section      2(h) of  the Act means ’in relation      to   estates    and    rights    of      intermediaries  therein,  does  not      include the  rights of  a raiyat or      of an  under-raiyat or  of  a  non-      agricultural  tenant,   but  shall,      except in  the case of land allowed      to be  retained by  an intermediary      under  provisions   of  Section  6,      include all  rights or interests of      whatever   nature,   belonging   to      intermediaries  or  other  persons,      which relates  to lands   comprised      in  estates   or  to   the  produce      thereof".   Therefore,   title   to      rights or  interests in lands which      include  fisheries   held   by   an      intermediary      shall       stand      extinguished and  ceased and  stood      vested in  the State  free  of  all      incumbrances. The respondents being      purchasers of leasehold interest in      tank fisheries,  as per  their  own      case, it  also stood  extinguished.      But, however,  since the  appellant      treated    the     respondent    as      intermediary, we  proceed  on  that      footing. The  exceptions  engrafted      in  the  incumbrance  and  exempted      from the  operation of  Sections  4      and 5  are only  the  rights  of  a      raiyat or  of an under-raiyat or of      a non  agricultural tenant  and the      right of  retention  of  possession      allowed to  an  intermediary  under      Section 6  of the  Act.  All  other      rights, interest of whatever nature      or   title    belonging   to    the      intermediaries or other persons who      hold the  lands under lease from an      intermediary  should   also   stand      extingushed.   All    grants    and      confirmation of  title, to  estates      and rights  therein, to  which  the      declaration of  vesting applies and      which  were   made  in   favour  of      intermediaries     shall      stand      dismissed and  ceased by  operation      of Section 51)(b) of the Act.      Section  6   postulates  by  a  non      obstante        clause         that      notwithstanding anything  contained      in Sections 4 and 5 an intermediary      shall,   except    in   the   cases      mentioned in  the  proviso  to  sub      section  (2)  but  subject  to  the      other  provisions   of  that   sub-      section, be entitled to retain with      effect from  the date  of vesting",      various  of  lands  like  homestead      etc. enumerated  therein  including      ’tank   fisheries’    means   "   a      reservoir or  place for the storage

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    of water,  whether formed naturally      or by excavation or by construction      of embankments, which is being used      for   pisciculture    or   fishing,      together with  the sub-soil and the      banks of  such reservoir  or place,      except such portion of the banks as      are included in a homestead or in a      garden or  orchard and includes any      right of pisciculture or fishing in      such reservoir or place".      On the  issue of notification under      section 49  . Section 62 prescribed      procedure to  deal with raiyats and      under-raiyats covered in chapter II      etc. It says that the provisions in      Chapter  II   shall  with      such      modification as  may  be  necessary      apply  mutatis     to   raiyats  or      under-raiyats  (sic  under-raiyats)      were intermediaries  and  the  land      held by  them were estates and such      a person  holding under a raiyat or      an under-raiyat  were a raiyata for      the purpose  of clauses (c) and (d)      of Section  5, provided that, where      a raiyat or an under-raiyat retains      under Section  6 any land comprised      in a  holding, then notwithstanding      anything to  the contrary contained      in sub-section (2) of section 6, he      shall pay the rent as prescribed in      clauses (a)  to (ds) thereto, Under      section 5(c)  every raiyat  holding      any  land   under  an  intermediary      shall hold  the same directly under      the State  as if the State had been      the intermediary  and on  the  same      terms and conditions as immediately      before the  date of  vesting.  Thus      the right,  title and interest of a      raiyat or under-raiyat in the lands      in his possession and enjoyment are      saved. By  operation  of  law  they      because full owners thereof subject      to the  terms and  conditions  that      may be imposed under Section 52 and      payment of  Jama  existing  on  the      date  of  notification  or  revised      from  time   to  time  and  finally      entered in Record of Rights.      The  pre-existing   rights  of  the      intermediaries  in  the  estate  to      which the declaration applied shall      stand vested  in the  State    free      from all  incumbrances.  Section  6      does  not   have  the   effect   of      divesting the  State of  the vested      right, title  and interest  or  the      intermediary. One of the right i.e.      possession     held      by     the      intermediaries is the only interest      saved  b   Section   6   from   the      operation of  Sections 4 and 5. The      fishery rights  also stood  vested.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

    The pre-existing  rights, title and      interest therein,  also shall stand      determined as against the State and      ceased. The  Collector had symbolic      possession under Section 10. But by      use  or   non  obstente  clause  in      Section 6(1)  the respondent became      entitled to  retain khas possession      of tank  fisheries,  and  he  shall      hold tank  fisheries directly under      the state  on such prescribed terms      and  conditions   and  subject   to      payment of  such  rent  as  may  be      determined under  the Act from time      to  time   as  finally  entered  in      Record of Rights."      As a consequences, the right title and interest held by the proprietory  company within  the meaning of Section 2(i) of the  Act,  stood  vested  in  the  State  free  from  all encumbrances.      It is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the respondent  that though  notice  under  Section  10  was issued by  the Collector for surrender of the possession, it was withdrawn  and that,  therefore, the  vesting  does  not apply to  the company.  We find  no force in the contention. Once the  land stood  vested in  the  State  free  from  all encumbrances, by  operation of  Section 4(1) of the Act, the mere inaction  on the  part of  the Collector  in not taking possession of  the land does not have any effect on vesting, which statutorily operated under section 4(1) of the Act. It is then contended that it being a non-agricultural land, the Act has  no application. We find no force in the contention. By operation  of Section  6(1)(c), all  non-    agricultural lands including  the tenancy  rights, if any, under the land held by  third parties  stood vested  in the State except to the extent  of 15  acres of the land to which the company is entitled to  retain title  to and possession of the same. It is then  contended that  under Section  6(j), it  being  the company, the  land does not vest in the State. We are unable to agree  with the  learned counsel.  Section 6(1(j) applies only to  the  agricultural  lands  or  to  the  business  of farming. Railway  company is  not engaged in the business of farming. Therefore, it has no application      It is then contended that by operation of Section 3A of the West  Bengal Land Reforms Act 1959, the non-agricultural land  does  not  stand  vested  We  find  no  force  in  the contention. What  is vested  under Section  3A of  the  Land Reforms Act  is the  tenancy rights  in  a  non-agricultural land; and  not the  proprietary  right.  Proprietary  rights having been  abolished by  operation of  Section 4(1) of the Act Section 3A of the Land Reforms Act in this regard has no application. It  is then  contended that  direction  may  be given to  the State  Government to  pay the  compensation to which the respondents are entitled to. We need not well upon that for  the reason that if the respondents are entitled to any compensation under the Act and it the state is liable to pay  for   it,  it   is  open  to  them  to  make  necessary application. It  is needless  to mention  that the competent authority would  consider and  dispose it  of in  accordance with law.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed. The appeal and writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.