ATUL CHANDRA MAHATO Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-2002-9-42
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 11,2002

ATUL CHANDRA MAHATO Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

COLLECTOR OF 24-PARGANAS V. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL V. PIJUS KANTI ROY [OVERRULED]
SHANTINIKETAN SOCIETY V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
MONORANJAN BELTHORIA V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF PURULIA [APPROVED () 18,20,21,27]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL V. AFUL KRISHNA SHAW [REFERRED TO]
SRIMATI RAJ LAKSHMI DASI VS. BANAMALI SEN [REFERRED TO]
GUNWANT KAUR VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE BHATINDA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SUBURBAN AGRICULTURE DAIRY AND FISHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SANTOSH KUMAR SINHA ROY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2012-6-53] [REFERRED TO]
RAJBALA BARIK VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2017-8-186] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ASIT KUMAR BISI, J. - (1.)In F.M.A. No. 471 of 1978 a Division Bench of this Court has recommended to the Honble Chief Justice to constitute a Full Bench of 5 Judges for deciding the following question:
"Whether or not, a transferee after the date of vesting under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, is entitled to a notice for a proceeding under Section 44 (2a) of the said Act."

(2.)However, the Honble Chief Justice has constituted this Special Bench of three Judges. After the constitution of this Bench we wanted to send the reference back to the Honble Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench of 5 Judges. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the parties submitted before us that this Special Bench as constituted by the Honble Chief Justice can dispose of the matter by answering the same as the Division Bench by mistake instead of sending the aforesaid question to be answered by a Special Bench has recommended a Full Bench of 5 Judges when there was a difference of opinion between two Division Benches of this Court. Such being the stand taken by the parties, we decided to answer the question posed by the Division Bench in its order dated 15th of February, 1984 passed in FMA No. 471 of 1978.
(3.)Before we proceed to take up the question for decision, we may briefly state the facts arising out of FMA No. 471 of 1978, which was preferred by the appellants/petitioners.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.