NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2470 OF 2007

State of West Bengal ….. Appellant

Versus

Hari Mohan Dana (D) by LRs. & Ors.      …. Respondents.

J U D G M E N T

HARJIT SINGH BEDI J,

1. The facts leading to this appeal are as under:

2. The original land owner Kulada Prosad Dana and his wife

Anila Dana, the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents,

held about 26.65 acres of agricultural land which included a

homestead.  On 12th June, 1970 Anila Dana transferred 7.19

acres of land to her three sons and on 13th February, 1971,

Kulada Prosad Dana transferred a further 14.55 acres of land

to  his  sons.   Both  transfers  were  by  way  of  registered  gift

deeds.   As  per  Section  14T  (3)  of  The  West  Bengal  Land

Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), it was

incumbent upon the Revenue Officer to determine the surplus

area held by Kulada Prosad Dana’s family but as no return

had  been  filed  by  the  landowners  as  provided  in  the  Act,

proceedings  were  initiated  on  2nd December,  1977  by  the

Revenue Officer under Section 14T (3) thereof.  Kulada Prosad

Dana died in the meanwhile and his three sons – ( the present

respondents ) filed Title Suit No. 422 of 1977 in the Court of

the  Munsif  at  Burdwan  for  a  declaration  of  title  and

permanent injunction.  The appellant-  State of West Bengal

filed  a  written  statement  raising  various  pleas  including  a

challenge to the gift deeds made by Kulada Prosad Dana and

Anila in favour of their sons.  By judgment and order dated

29th July,  1981,  the  Munsif  decreed  the  suit  and  issued  a

direction  that no order for vesting of the land be passed and

that  the  total  area  held  by  the  family  was  within  the

permissible  area  of  25  acres.   The  State  of  West  Bengal,

thereafter filed Title Appeal No. 207 of 1981 in the Court of

the District Judge,  who set aside the order dated 29th July,

2

1981 and dismissed the suit.  The Revenue Officer who had

earlier been restrained by an interim order once again started

with the proceedings on 22nd January, 1985 and vide order

dated  8th February, 1985 held that out of the total land area

belonging to the family, land measuring 14.29 acres was in

excess.  This area was declared as vesting in the State and

possession thereof was accordingly taken.  The land owners-

respondents being aggrieved by the judgment aforesaid, filed

Second Appeal No. 337 of 1985 in the Hon’ble High Court at

Calcutta, and by its judgment dated 24th July, 2002, the High

Court  set  aside  the  order  of  the  District  Judge  dated  12th

December, 1984 and restored the judgment and decree dated

29th July,  1981  of  the  Munsif,  and held  that  there  was no

surplus area in the hands of the family.  The order dated 24th

July, 2002 has been impugned by the State of West Bengal in

this appeal.

3. At the very  outset,  Mr.  Bhaskar P.  Gupta,  the learned

senior counsel for the appellant – State has pointed out that

by virtue of Section 61 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil

Court  was  barred  in  such  matters  though  admittedly  this

3

objection  had  not  been  taken  at  any  stage  in  the  civil

proceedings or even in the Special Leave Petition filed in this

Court.  He has pointed out that as this was a matter relating

to jurisdiction, the appellant – State had filed I.A. No.7 in the

present  appeal  to  urge  this  additional  ground  and  if  this

objection was to be taken into account, the very initiation of

civil  proceedings by Title  Suit  no. 422 of 1977 were nonest

and outside the purview of the civil court.  He has pointed out

that assuming for a moment that this Court was not inclined

to take cognizance of this question, he was willing to argue the

case on merits so as to show that the order of the High Court

was wrong.  

4. Mr.  S.B.  Sanyal,  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

respondent has, very fairly, not seriously disputed Mr. Gupta’s

submission based on Section 61 of the Act but has pointed

out that as this plea has been raised at a very belated stage,

liberty  should  be  given  by  this  Court  (and  without  any

argument as to limitation to be raised by the other side) so

that the order of the Revenue Officer dated 8th February, 1985

could be challenged in appeal.  

4

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

gone through the matter  carefully.  It  does  appear  from the

trend of the arguments before us that the jurisdiction of the

civil court in a matter pertaining to determination of surplus

area  under  the  Act  is  barred  under  Section  61  thereof.

However, as the State had never raised this plea at any stage

up to the Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court and has

raised  it  only  as  additional  ground  and  as  an afterthought

after the SLP had been filed, we are of the opinion that the

land owner – respondents must be given a chance to challenge

the correctness of the order dated 8th February, 1985.  

6.       We, thus, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned

order of the High Court dated 24th July, 2002 and order that

the civil  proceedings initiated by Title  Suit No. 422 of 1977

must be held as being barred under Section 61 of the Act. We

are  informed  that  an  appeal  against  the  order  dated  8th

February, 1985 would be maintainable under Section 14T(7)

read  with Section 54 of  the  Act.   In  this  background if  an

appeal is filed by the land owner – respondents within 60 days

from the date that a certified copy of this order be supplied to

5

them,  the  State  of  West  Bengal  shall  not  raise  the  plea  of

limitation.   

7.     As evident from the discussion above, we have not made

any comment on the merits of the case.   We, thus, leave it

open to both parties (with the exception of the rider relating to

the plea of limitation) to raise all  other pleas open to them.

There will be no order as to costs.  

…………………………..J. (Dalveer Bhandari)

…………………………..J. (Harjit Singh Bedi )

New Delhi, Dated: October 23, 2008

6