CHITTA RANJAN GHOSE & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CHITTA RANJAN GHOSE And ORS.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)Common questions of law are involved in all these Rules. The facts and circumstances of these cases are also more or less similar. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience all these Rules were heard together. My judgment in CR No. 556(w) of 1974 shall govern all these cases.
(2.)The petitioners are the transferees of 1.42 acres of land, being plot No. 18 under khatian No. 80 of mouza Harishinghpur within Chandrakona Police Station in the district of Midnapore. On 14th of April 1972 the respondents 3 and 4 along with their father, who was alive at that time, alienated the aforesaid land to the petitioners absolutely by a registered sale deed on a consideration of Rs. 2,999/-. Since the date of the said purchase, the petitioners are in possession of the said land and have been cultivating the same after investing a good amount of money in the aforesaid land by way of development. It appears from the recitals of the deed of sale that the said land was sold to the petitioners for repairing of the residential house of the respondent no. 3 and his father, since deceased, and for cultivation of the lands by adopting better methods and also for purchasing land nearer to land of respondent no. 4. The petitioners never entered into any oral contract with the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to retransfer the said land at any time thereafter on repayment of the consideration money.
(3.)The West Bengal Legislature passed the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act (West Bengal Act XXIII of 1973) which duly received the assent of the President of India and was published in the Calcutta Gazette (Extraordinary) on the 5th of May, 1973. By virtue of the rule making powers as conferred by section 9 of the said Act, the West Bengal Legislature by a notification dated 20th May, 1973 made certain rules prescribing certain procedures to be followed in applying certain sections of the said Act, By the said Act, a Special Officer was appointed by the State Government to discharge the functions of the Special Officer under the Act. The respondent No. 2 is the said Special Officer. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 taking advantage of the enactment of the said Act, made an application before the said Special Officer, which was registered as case No. 6 of 1974 and thereupon, the said Special Officer in exercise of his powers under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the said Act, served a notice upon the petitioners as transferees informing them as to the filing of the said application and calling upon them to appear on 21st June, 1974 with all evidence as might be adduced when the case would be heard by the said respondent no. 2. In the application filed by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, it is alleged that they received Rs. 2,300.00 instead of Rs. 2,999/- as stated in the sale deed ; they had not more than 2.43 acres of land, apart from the disputed 1.42 acres of land sold by them to the petitioners. They sold the land for meeting certain necessary expenses. It is further alleged in the said application that there was an oral contract of retransferrirg the land as soon as the said Rs. 2,300.00would be repaid by them. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said notice issued by the said Special Officer, moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution on Sept. 9,1974 and obtained the present Rule.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.