Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Saria Bewa Alias Sayera Bewa vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 August, 2023
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
W.P.L.R.T.42 of 2023
Saria Bewa alias Sayera Bewa
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & ors.
For the Writ petitioner : Mr. B. N. Ray, Advocate
Ms. Shetparna Ray, Advocate
For the State : Md. T. M. Siddiqui, Ld. A.G.P.
Mr. Supratim Dhar, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.4 & 5.: Mr. Dhananjay Banerjee, Advocate
Mr. Jisan Iqbal Hossain, Advocate
Ms. Oindrila Ghosh, Advocate
Hearing on : 22.08.2023
Judgment on : 22.08.2023
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1. The writ petition is directed against an order dated September 23,
2022, passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in
O.A.2692 of 2019.
2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal negated the challenge of the
writ petitioner to the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated June
20, 2019.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that,
the writ petitioner purchased the immovable property in 2013. Prior to
the purchase in 2013 proceedings under the provisions of the West
Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers,
Artisan and Fishermen Act 1975 were undertaken. Initially an order was
passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (B.L. & L.R.O) which
was assailed on appeal. The Appellate Authority, remanded the matter
for fresh consideration. He refers to the order of the Appellate Authority
dated March 29, 2017. He submits that, the criteria for consideration of
the proceedings were laid down. Thereafter, the concerned B.L. & L.R.O,
passed an order dated May 31, 2018 which was appealed against. The
Appellate Authority concurred with the view of the concerned B.L. &
L.R.O by the order dated June 20, 2019. This was challenged before the
Tribunal resulting in the impugned order.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner draws the
attention of the Court to the various provisions of the Act of 1975. In
particular, he refers to the definition of 'artisan' appearing in Section
2(a), 'homestead' appearing in Section 2(d) and 'occupier' as appearing in
Section 2(f) of the Act of 1975. He also refers to the provisions of Section
4 of the Act of 1975. He contends that, the private respondents being
respondent nos.4 and 5 are in laws of so-called occupiers. One of them
was not born on June 26, 1975 and other was a minor at that point of
time. Moreover, they cannot be considered as occupier as on June 26,
1975 as one was not born and the other was minor. They claim to come
into possession by marriage. He submits that, the ingredients under
Section 4 of the Act of 1975 are absent in the facts and circumstances of
the present case. Moreover, none of the authorities alluded to an order of
vesting passed under Section 4 of the Act of 1975. He relies upon 2005
(1) Calcutta High Court Notes 235 (Mitali Goswami vs. State of West
Bengal & ors.) in support of is contentions.
5. State and the private respondents are represented.
6. Apparently, two applications were made before the concerned B.L.
& L.R.O. invoking provisions of the Act of 1975. On the basis of such
application, a proceeding was initiated. Initially, an order dated May 4,
2007 was passed by the concerned B.L. & L.R.O recording the land as
'homestead' under the provisions of the Act of 1975. An appeal was
carried against such order which was disposed of by an order dated
March 29, 2017 by remanding the issue to the concerned B.L. & L.R.O.
Order of remand dated March 29, 2017 recorded that, it was to be
determined whether the private respondents possessed any other landed
property at the time of proceeding 42/07 and 43/07 and further whether
the private respondents fulfilled the criteria to get homestead.
7. Subsequent to the order of the Appellate Authority dated March
29, 2017, the concerned B.L. & L.R.O on remand, initiated the
proceedings resulting in its order dated May 31, 2018.
8. The concerned B.L. & L.R.O took the assistance of Revenue
Inspector to make the spot enquiry. The Revenue Inspector submitted a
report which was considered by the concerned B.L. & L.R.O while
passing the order dated March 31, 2018.
9. We perused the report of the Revenue Inspector dated May 23,
2018 which is in the vernacular.
10. In the report dated May 23, 2018, the Revenue Inspector finds that
the private respondents were in possession of the plots in question. It
also records that prior thereto, the in-laws of the private respondents
were in occupation of the land in question. In the report, both the
respondents were found to be working as workers in Biri Manufacturing
Factory.
11. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondents contends
that the respondent no.5 is an agricultural labourer.
12. By the order dated May 31, 2018, the concerned B.L. & L.R.O.
found that both the private respondents were in possession of the plots
since 1975 through their predecessors. The petitioner failed to produce
any relevant documents contrary to the claim of the private respondents
regarding their possession since 1975. The private respondents did not
possess any land before being recorded as homestead beneficiaries over
the plots concerned.
13. On the basis of such findings, the concerned B.L. & L.R.O opined
that recording under Section 4 of the Act of 1975 in favour of the
respondents was correct. The application of the petitioner was considered
and rejected. Homestead was recorded in the name of the private
respondents. The record of rights was corrected under Section 50 of the
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. An appeal was preferred against
the order dated May 31, 2018. The Appellate Court disposed of the
appeal by the order dated June 20, 2019 concurring with the view of the
concerned B.L. & L.R.O.
14. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority dated
June 20, 2019, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of
O.A.2692 of 2019 in which the impugned order was passed.
15. As the preamble of the Act of 1975 states that the Act of 1975 was
to provide for acquisition of land in rural areas on which, homestead was
constructed by any person being an agricultural labourer, artisan or
fishermen and to confer title of such land in favour of such person.
16. Word artisan, homestead and occupier are defined under Act of
1975. It would be apposite to refer to the definition of such words in the
Act of 1975.
"2(a) "artisan" means a handicraftsman
and includes potter, carpenter and
blacksmith;
(d) "homestead" means a dwelling house
which is complete in itself and is not shared
in common with any person other than a
person belonging to the same family and
includes any courtyard, compound, garden,
place of worship, family graveyard, tank,
well, privy, latrine, drain and boundary
wall annexed to or appertaining to such
dwelling house bout does not include a
brickbuilt structure with a pucca roof:
Provided that in the district of Darjeeling
excluding its Siliguri sub-division a
homestead shall include a brick-built
structure with a pucca roof;
Explanation- For the purpose of this
clause, "family" includes husband, wife,
son daughter and any lineal discendant of
any son or daughter;
(f) "occupier" means an agricultural
labourers or an artisan or a fisherman who
is in possession of any land of another
person, either as a lessee or as a licensee or
as a trespasser and who holds no other
land in any capacity whatsoever and
includes the heirs of such person;"
17. It is also apposite to consider Section 4 of the Act of 1975 which is
as follows:-
"4. Acquisition of lands for
occupiers.-Where an occupier has been in
possession of any land on the 26th day of
June, 1975 then -
(a) if the land in his possession does not
exceed .0334 hectare, such land, and
(b) if the land in his possession exceeds .0334
hectare, so much of such land as does not
exceed .0334 hectare, shall stand acquired
by the State Government and shall
thereupon stand transferred to and vest
absolutely in favour of such occupier."
18. Section 4 of the Act of 1975 came up for consideration in Mitali
Goswami (supra) which is of the following view:-
"6. In order to attract the provisions of the
1975 Act, the occupier must be in
possession of the land on 26th June, 1975.
The "occupier", defined under section 2(f) of
the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead
Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans
and Fishermen Act, means the possession
of a land of another either as a lessee,
licensee or a transferor who holds no other
land in any way whatsoever. Even if we
ignore the information slips even then there
must be certain material to show that these
persons were in occupation of the land in
1975. In one case, namely, respondent No.9
himself stated that he was aged about 28
years on 19th July, 1994. On calculation, it
appears that he would be 9 years old in
1975."
19. The Act of 1975 is not limited to an artisan but also governs a
fisherman or an agricultural labourer. The definition of 'artisan'
appearing in Section 2(a) of the Act of 1975 is required to be considered
in such context. The definition as it stands is one which is inclusive. It
includes potter, carpenter and blacksmith. Nothing is placed before us to
suggest that a biri worker will not come within the definition of artisan as
appearing in the Act of 1975.
20. 'Homestead' is defined in Section 2(d) of the Act of 1975 which
requires that it should be a dwelling house complete in itself and not
shared in common with any person other than the person belonging to
the same family.
21. "Occupier" is defined under Section 2(f) to mean an agricultural
labourer or an artisan or a fisherman who is in possession of any land of
another person either as a lessee or as a licensee or as a trespasser and
that he does not hold other land in any capacity whatsoever. Heirs of
such persons are also included in the definition of occupier.
22. By dint of the inclusive definition of occupier both the private
respondents will come within the meaning of occupier since their
predecessors-in-interest were in occupation of the land in question. This
is established from the report of the Revenue Inspector.
23. Section 4 was interpreted in Mitali Goswami (supra). Section 4
requires an occupier to be in possession of any land on June 26, 1975.
Section 4 prescribes that if an occupier is in possession of any land on
June 26, 1975 then, if the possession does not exceed 0.0334 hectare
then such land will stand acquired by the State Government and if it
exceeds 0.0334 hectares then so much of the land that does not exceed
0.0334 hectares will stand acquired by the State Government.
24. In the facts of the present case, the Revenue Inspector report
establishes that the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents
were in possession of the land considered on June 26, 1975.
25. All ingredients of the Act of 1975 stands satisfied for its invocation
so far as the private respondents in respect of the land in question are
concerned. These facts were elaborately dealt with by the concerned B.L.
& L.R.O. and upheld on appeal by the Appellate authority and concurred
by the Tribunal in the impugned order.
26. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the present writ
petition.
27. W.P.L.R.T. 42 of 2023 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
28. I agree.
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
CHC
