PASCHIMBANGA BHUMIJIBI KRISHAK SAMITI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1996-7-8
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 26,1996

ABDUL HAI,GOBINDA CH.DAS,PASCHIMBANGA BHUMIJIBI KRISHAK SAMITI,MD. AHAD BOX,ANANTA PURUSATTAM,KRISHNA GAYEN,UMANANDA ROY,TARAPADA DAS PALIT,PANCHANAN ROY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL,REVENUE OFFICER BURDWAN,REVENUE OFFICER, BEHARAMPUR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CHICAGO BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY V. CITY OF CHICAGO [REFERRED TO]
WAGHELA RAJSANJIT V. SHEKH MASLUDIN [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM SILLIMANITE LTD. AND ANR. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
KALIKA KAUR V. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY GENERAL V. DE KEYSER'S ROYAL HOTEL LTD. [REFERRED TO]
BURMA TRADING LTD. V. LORD ADVOCATE,BURMAH OIL COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
SHANTILAL AND BROTHERS V. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
SASANK SEKHAR MAITI V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S.R.BHAGWAT AND ORS. V. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
JILUBHAI NANBHAI KHACHAR AND ORS. V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
GYAN SINGH V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
B.SHANKARA RAO AND ORS. V. THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
TULSIRAM KANU VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. BELLA BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
RAJAHMUNDRY ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DEOKI NANDAN VS. MARLIDHAR [REFERRED TO]
KAVALAPPARA KOTTARATHIL KOCHUNI MOOPIL NAYAR RAVUNNIARATH UNNIMALU AMMA DEVAKI AMMA RAVUNNIARATH RAJAN MENON RAVUNNIARATH RAJAN MENON RAVUNNIARATH RAJAN MENON K C GOPALAN UNNI THATHUNNI NAIR MANNARGHAT MOOPIL NAIR VS. STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA:STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA:STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA:STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA:STATE OF MADRAS:STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
PURUSHOTHAMAN NAMBUDIRI VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL PLAINTIFF THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF MADHYA PRADESH THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF ASSAM THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF ORISSA THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR T VS. UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFE [REFERRED TO]
P VAJRAVELU MUDALIAR MOST REV DR L MATHIAS VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR FOR LAND ACQUISITION WEST MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
NARESH SHRIDHAR MIRAJKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
S PRITAM SINGH CHAHIL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
BALMADIES PLANTATIONS LIMITED NILAMBUR KOVILAKAM OVALLEY ESTATE LIMITED THE CO OPERATIVE TEA SOCIETY LIMITED VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MALANKARA RUBBER AND PRODUCE GO VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU SHRI RAGHUNATH RAO GANPAT RAO N H NAWAB MOHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ALI KHAN SHETHIA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LIMITED THE ORIENTAL GOAL GO LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA AMALGAMATED MALABAR ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING WVG CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED VS. S B KAMBLE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. CHANAN MAL:STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
SASANKA SEKHAR MAITY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAO SAHIB SHRI BHIM SINGHJI ANANTALAKSHMI PATHABI RAMASHRRMA YOTURI JODHAN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CO PRIVATE LIMITED RAJENDRA GARG SHAMSHUL ISLAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AKHIL BHARATIYA SOSHIT KARAMCHARI SANGH RAILWAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GULAM ABBAS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
A K ROY THAN SINGH TYAGI DR VASANTKUMAR PANDIT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S P GUPTA V M TARKUNDE J L KALRA IQBAL M CHAGLA MISS LILY THOMAS A RAJAPPA UNION OF INDIA D N PANDEY R PRASAD SINHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV COKE MANUFACTURING COMPANY BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED VS. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD:SANJEEV COKE MANUFACTURING COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
D S NAKARA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PREM NATH RAINA VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. L ABU KAVUR BAI:V K ELAIYALWAR:STATE OF TAMIL NADU:STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MADHUSUDAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. BASANTIBAT MOHANLAL KHETAN [REFERRED TO]
TINSUKHIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
DIBYASINGH MALANA TRIVIKRAM MALANA DR SAKTIDHAR JENA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
UNION TERRITORY OF GOA DAMAN AND DIU SMT LAKSHMIBAI NARAYAN PATIL VS. LAKSHMIBAI NARAYAN PATIL:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT OF INDIA VS. CAUVERY WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. KARNAL CO OP FARMERS SOCIETY LTD:DILLARAI:BHARTU [REFERRED TO]
NEW REVIERA COOR HOUSING SOCIETY HARJANG SINGH GREWAL [RETD ] VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION VS. TELUGU CHURCH COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
K R LAKSHMANAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
PEDDINTI VENKATA MURALI RANGANATHA DESIKA IYENGAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
JAINI VS. RAM PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAMONI DASI VS. BASER MONDAL [REFERRED TO]
BASANTIBAI FAKIRCHAND KHETAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
CHANAN MAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PRAFULLA KUMAR MAITY VS. AMAL KRISHNA MISHRA [LAWS(CAL)-1997-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTINIKETAN SOCIETY VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2000-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
SWAPAN KUMAR KAR VS. SALIL KUMAR DEY [LAWS(CAL)-2004-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
PUNIT SINGH VS. SRI GOUR ALIAS GOBINDA CHANDRA DAS [LAWS(CAL)-2007-4-64] [REFERRED TO]
EK LAL DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAT NEOGI VS. PRADIP KR SEN [LAWS(CAL)-2009-11-47] [DISTINGUISHED]
TARULATA MAHANTA VS. HARIPADA SARKAR [LAWS(CAL)-2012-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
SIRAJUDDIN MOLLA VS. EBADAR RAHMAN MOLLA [LAWS(CAL)-2012-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
BASANTI MONDAL VS. SRIKANTA MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-2013-9-131] [REFERRED]
BIBHUTI BISWAS VS. GOUTAM DAS [LAWS(CAL)-2013-7-150] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT KUMAR MONDAL VS. PANKOJ MUKHOPADHYAY AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-12-96] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. COMPANION TRADERS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
BHABANI KARMAKAR VS. PRADIP RANJAN DEY [LAWS(CAL)-2013-12-134] [REFERRED]
HARISADHAN BANDOPADHYAY AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1997-9-60] [REFERRED TO]
ARATI RANI PAUL & ORS VS. AJIT KUMAR GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-2018-8-169] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMA PRASED MONDAL VS. SUSANTA KUMAR SAHA [LAWS(CAL)-2019-1-100] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.B.Sinha, J. - (1.)These Appeals principally raising the question of constitutionality of West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 Amendment Act) and West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Amendment) Act were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement.
(2.)In the main matter namely Appeal from Order No. 400/92 arising out of Matter No. 1367/87 (Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.) two applications for amendment have been flied questioning the Constitutional First Amendment Act, 1951 in so far as it purported to insert Article 31B; sections 6,7,8 and 2 of the Constitution (44th) Amendment Act, 1978 the Constitution (66th) Amendment Act, 1991 in so far as 9th Schedule of the Constitution Was amended by inserting West Bengal Act No. 1980 Item No. 251 therein and the Constitution (78th) Amendment Act. 1995 in so far as the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1981 and 1986 were included therein as Items No. 278 to 280 in the 9th Schedule. The said applications for amendment were allowed and the Union of India was added as a party. Notices have been served upon the Union of India as well as the Attorney General of India.
(3.)The challenge to Constitution First Amendment Act, 1951 was not pressed as the validity thereof had been upheld by the Supreme Court of India. Similarly the validity of the 44th Amendment of the Constitution deleting Article 31 and 19(1)(f) form Part-III of the Constitution was not pressed in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court of India covering the said question. However, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners the said challenges are not given up.
;


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