KALICHARAN SAHA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF W.B. & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioners claim that they are occupying the land on the bank of the Laldighi since being settled to them for homestead purpose. As they are using the said land in their occupation as homestead, they had applied for long term settlement of the said land. In this writ petition, interim order was obtained which is due to expire to-day. The matter has appeared in the list for extension of interim order. At this stage, the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court was questioned.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the long term settlement of the said land, which, according to him, is a non-agricultural land, is made under chapter XV of the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Manual, 1991. It is not made under Sec. 49 of the W.B. Land Reforms Act, 1955 read with Rule 20(A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules 1965. Nor it is made under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. Therefore, the exercise undertaken, under the Land Reforms Manual will not be an exercise of any jurisdiction pertaining to the provisions of West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955, a specified Act as defined under Sec. 2(r) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997. Therefore, Sections 7 and 8 of the 1997 Act would not stand in the way of exercising jurisdiction in relation to this matter. He had pointed out that from the definition of the 'land reforms' defined in Sec. 2(p) of the 1997 Act, relates to right, title, possession or interest in any estate or incidence therein. The petitioners have not claimed either any right title or possession or interest but are only seeking a long term settlement in their favour. Therefore, this question is not hit by the mischief of the 1997 Act. According to him, West Bengal Land Management Manual is executive instruction and as such it is neither part of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act nor of West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and therefore it does not come within the purview of Sec. 2(r) of the 1997 Act. He also relies on Sec. 63 of the Land Reforms Act in order to contend that the West Bengal Non- agricultural Tenancy Act has been repealed only to the extent that are repugnant to the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. In the present case, there being no repugnancy, the question of excluding jurisdiction of this Court does not arise, since it would be a settlement within the meaning of Non-agricultural Tenancy Act and not under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, though the instruction contained in the West Bengal Land Reforms Manual is resorted to.

(3.) Mrs. Gupta, learned counsel for the State respondents, on the other hand contends that an Act under the General Clauses Act includes rules and regulations framedthereunder and the executive instructions are only extension of such rules and regulations. The Manual supplements such rules and regulations. According to her, the provisions contained in the Manual may be executive instruction, but still then those are used and utilised for the purpose of implementation of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act and as such it has not independent status or existence other than the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, an Act specified within Sec. 2(r) of the 1997 Act. She also relies on the preface of the Manual in order to contend that such Manual was aimed at supplementing the process for implementation of the provision of the specified Act. She also contended that the settlement is intended of a land, the definition whereof includes non-agricultural land after the amendment of the definition of 'land' by the 1981 W.B. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act. Therefore, all these submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are of no substance.