SUSHIL KUMAR GHOSH Vs. REVENUE OFFICER BALURGHAT
LAWS(CAL)-1975-9-1
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 16,1975

SUSHIL KUMAR GHOSH Appellant
VERSUS
REVENUE OFFICER, BALURGHAT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

AMBUJAKHYA MUKHERJEE V. THE STATE [REFERRED TO]
MATHURA PRASAD BAJOO JAISWAL VS. DOSSIBAI N B JEEJEEBHOYF [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PRAHLADRAI AGARWALLA VS. RENUKA PAL [LAWS(CAL)-1982-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
SWAMI PREMANANDA VS. SWAMI YOGANANDA [LAWS(KER)-1984-12-18] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sankak Prasad Mitra, CJ. - (1.)By this judgment we propose to deal with nine appeals. These are First Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 367 to 375 of 1975. These appeals arise out of Civil Revision Cases Nos. 6927 (W) to 6935 (W) of 1960.
(2.)Two brothers. Srikanta Ghosh and Puma Chandra Ghosh, held extensive lands in West Dinajpore. It is alleged that these two brothers by unregistered deeds executed between January 31, 1953 and February 8, 1953 had transferred certain lands in favour of their sons and daughters individually. It is further alleged that these transfers by unregistered deeds were subsequently confirmed by registered deeds in or about October, 1954. The respondents sought to apply the provisions of Section 5-A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 to these transfers. Now, in order to attract the said provisions, it is necessary to show that the intermediary transferred lands between the 5th May, 1953 and the date of vesting, that is, the 15th April, 1955. The registered deeds, in the instant case, were executed within the said period.
(3.)In or about 1958 A number of proceedings under Section 5-A were initiated in respect of the aforesaid transfers. The Revenue Officer took the view that the transfers were bona fide inasmuch as they were effected before the prohibited period by unregistered documents which were subsequently confirmed by registered documents. The Revenue Officer obviously overlooked the legal position that there could be no transfer by unregistered documents irrespective of whether the transfers were bona fide or mala fide. No appeal was preferred against the decisions of the said Revenue Officer but his successor in 1969 initiated the impugned proceedings once more disputing the bona fides of the transfers under Section 5-A of the Act The subsequent proceedings instituted in 1969 were challenged in writ applications before this Court. Mr. Justice Anil K. Sen by his Lordship's judgment delivered on the 13th August. 1974 has discharged the Rules. These appeals are directed against the discharge of the Rules.


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