PRAFULLA BALA DEBI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1976-4-3
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 09,1976

PRAFULLA BALA DEBI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF WEST BENGAL V. SHEBAITS OF ISWAR SRI SARADIYA THAKURANI [REFERRED TO]
SHIBSANKAR NANDY VS. PRABARTAK SINGH [REFERRED TO]
AHINDRA NATH MUKHOPADHYAYA VS. MANMATHA NATH KURMI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE plaintiffs' case is that beels containing an area of 15. 92 acres situated in Mouja Palashi p. S. Dhanikhali District Hooghly, comprised in C. S. Dags 398 and 1800 -Nuruda Beel and 537 and 1967-Bamandaha Beel khatian 253 were held under patni from Burdwan Raj by Peary Mohan Mukherjee. Those beels were settled by Chandra Nath Mukherjee, only heir of peary Mohan, to Abinash Chandra Sarkar with banks and subsoil rights on basis of a registered kabuliyat dated january 8, 1946 at an annual rental of rs. 96. 50 Abinash in his turn settled jalkar right therein to Kali Chandra saha on Agrahayan 13, 1353 B. S. (November 29, 1946) for a period of ten years at an annual rental of Rs. 200/-Abinash sold his 23 interest in the said property to the plaintiff by registered deed on September 25, 1956. Remaining 1/3rd interest therein was sold by Abinash to Sankar Bose who by Kobala dated December 8, 1958 sold the same to the plaintiffs. They thereby became the full owner of the said property and had been in possession thereof on making various improvements thereto.
(2.)WITH the enforcement of the west Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, the interests superior to that of abinash vested in the State while Abinash became a tenant under the State. Notices under Section 10 (2) of the said act was issued and it was held by the additional Collector of Hooghly by order dated June 1, 1957 in Case No. XIII/42/56 that the interest of the Mukherjees had vested in the State and abinash was to be recognised as a tenant under the State and rents were in fact realised from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed Case No. 19 under Section 44 (2a) of the Act but the S. E. O. by his order dated February 4, 1960 erroneously came to finding that Abinash was an intermediary under the act and his interest vested in the state. The plaintiffs contended that abinash became a tenant under the state in occupation of the property and as the order referred to above cast a cloud on their title to the property, they instituted a suit against the State on notice under Section 80 on November 30, 1960 on the above allegations and contentions praying for a declaration of their title to the said property on the finding that the entries of the name of Kali Charan as tenant under mukherjees in the re-visional settlement in respect thereof were erroneous and without basis and also for injunction restraining the State from laying any claim to khas possession of the property or from settling the property to others.
(3.)STATE of West Bengal contested the suit by filing a written statement contending that the suit property had vested in the State and the alleged purchases being after vesting, conferred no interest in the plaintiffs. Further none of the interested parties like abinash, Mukherjees or Kalicharan filed any return under Section 6. The state was recorded to be in possession in Case No. 19 of Mouza Palashi under Section 44 (2a) as it had taken possession of the properties under Section 10 (2 ). It was stated that the re-visional record of right was not erroneous and plaintiffs' possession of the property was disputed. It was accordingly submitted that the suit should be dismissed.
;


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