Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. United Spirits Limited vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 10 February, 2023
194 10.02. WPLRT 106 of 2012
2023 With
IA No. CAN 1 of 2018 (Old No. 2360 of 2018)
Ct. No. 04
IA No. CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. 2361 of 2018)
Ab IA No. CAN 6 of 2022
M/s. United Spirits Limited
Vs.
State of West Bengal and others.
---------------
Mr. Joydip Kar,
Mr. Ajay Gaggar,
Mr. Uttiyo Mallick.
... for the petitioner/applicant.
Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay,
Mr. Aniruddha Sen.
... for the State respondents.
Re: CAN 6 of 2022
The instant application has been taken out on the
subsequent development of the events during pendency
of the instant writ petition and an immediate protection
so that the highhanded of the State instrumentality may
not cause serious injury to the petitioner/applicant.
The instant writ petition was filed challenging the
order of the Tribunal dismissing the application wherein
the challenge was made to the decision of the competent
authority under Section 14T of the West Bengal Land
Reforms Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act').
By the said order, the authorities declared 9.42 acres of
land being excess of the ceiling limit and to be vested to
the State of West Bengal.
At the time of entertaining the writ petition, an
interim order was passed on 30th April 2012 by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court directing the authorities to
maintain status quo with regard to the actual physical
possession of the land in question as on the date. During
pendency of the instant writ petition, a suo motu
proceeding was initiated by the competent authority
under Section 14T of the said Act afresh and by the said
order, 11.44 acres of land has been declared as excess to
ceiling limit and vested to the State of West Bengal. A
direction was further passed to take steps under Section
14S of the said Act i.e. to take possession of the vested
land.
Our attention is drawn to a judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in case of Paschim Banga
Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti and Ors. vs. State of West
Bengal and Ors., reported in (1996) 2 Calcutta High
Court Notes 212, wherein the Division Bench held that
the provisions contained in Section 14V vis-à-vis the
definition of the land as contained in Section 2(7) and
Section 3A(3) of the Act is ultra vires to Article 300A of
the Constitution of India.
It is not in dispute that the said order/judgment
has been assailed before the Apex Court and an interim
order of stay of the operation of the said order had been
passed therein. The matter is still pending before the
Supreme Court.
In the meantime, the State taking advantage of the
order of stay was proceeding under Section 14T of the
said Act in determining the excess land owned and
possessed by the raiyat over and above the ceiling limit.
One of such matter came before the Division Bench
of this Court in case of Niranjan Chatterjee and Ors. vs.
State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in (2007) 3
Calcutta High Court Notes 683, wherein an argument
was advanced by the State that the moment the
judgment rendered in Paschim Banga Bhumijibi
Krishak Samiti and Ors. (Supra) had been stayed, there
is no fetter on the part of the State Government to
proceed for determining the excess land under Section
14T of the said Act. The Division Bench held that the
moment the provisions contained in Section 14V of the
Act has been declared ultra vires on the score that there
cannot be any vesting without making any lawful
provision for the compensation, the State cannot be
permitted to proceed on the said provision of vesting
against the petitioner so long the adequate provision for
compensation is not incorporated in the statute. A plea
was sought to be taken by the State that once the
operation of the judgment and order of the High Court is
stayed by the Supreme Court, it effaces the binding
efficacy of the said judgment and cannot be said to be a
law applicable in this regard. The Division Bench
dispelled the aforesaid contention in the following:
"After hearing the learned Counsel for the
parties and after going through the aforesaid
position of fact, we find that the Supreme Court by
those interim order has not doubt, stayed the
operation of the order of the Division Bench of this
Court by directing the parties to maintain status
quo but at the same time, has even restrained the
State from inducting the third parties on the lands
which were the subject matters before the Apex
court. Such interim order is binding upon the
parties to the proceedings but the law is equally
settled that by mere passing of an interim order
staying the operation of a judgment with certain
further conditions, the existence of the said
judgment is not wiped out and at the same time,
for such interim order inter parties, the authority
of a decision as a precedent is never undermined.
Unless a decision is set aside by the Superior
Court, the said decision remains effective as a
superior Court has granted interim order.
Moreover, once a provision has been declared ultra
vires the Constitution of India, the State cannot
invoke the said 'ultra vires provision' against the
citizens of the country simply because an interim
order of stay of operation of the order declaring the
provision as ultra vires has been passed in an
appeal against such order. The object of granting
interim order is to see that the relief claimed in the
appeal may not become in appropriate or the
appeal does not become infructuous for not
granting such interim order; but by mere grant of
interim stay, the effect of a binding precedent is
not destabilized. Over and above, the interim
orders of the stay granted by the Supreme Court
clearly indicate that the said Court never intended
that notwithstanding the decision of the High
Court declaring a part of the provisions of vesting
as ultra vires the Constitution, the State would
nevertheless be free to proceed with the process of
vesting during the pendency of the proceedings
before the Supreme Court and that is why status
quo as regards possession had been maintained
and even, the State has been restrained from
creating any 'third party interest' in the lands in
question."
The identical issue raised in another case before the
Division Bench in relation to the case Pijush Kanti
Chowdhury vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported
in (2007) 3 Calcutta High Court Notes 178 where the
Division Bench reiterated and restated the proposition as
laid down in Niranjan Chatterjee and Ors. (Supra). The
cumulative effect of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid
decision leaves no ambiguity in our mind that the
provision relating to vesting without adequate provision
for compensation having provided in the statute is
impermissible.
We are informed that the State Government taking
advantage of the lack of any specific order has proceeded
on the basis of a letter dated 3rd January 2022 and put a
placard/board on the conspicuous part of the land. By
putting such placard/board, the information is impliedly
circulated in the mind of the general public that the
aforesaid land belongs to the Government of West Bengal
and the physical possession of the said person is illegal
and wrongful.
In view of the facts emanate from the instant case,
we find that the petitioner has been able to make out a
prima facie case for an interim order.
The State Government is directed to remove the
placard/board put on the land in question immediately
and is further restrained from giving effect to or any
further steps on the basis of the purported order dated
17th December 2021 until disposal of the application.
The State respondents are directed to file affidavit-
in-opposition to the instant application within four weeks
from date; reply thereto, if any, shall be filed within a
week thereafter and the application is made returnable
after five weeks.
Put up the matter as directed above.
(Harish Tandon, J.)
(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)
