Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rajarhat Fishermen'S Co-Operative ... vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 6 September, 2024
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
RVW 179 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
RVW 179 of 2024
With
IA No.: CAN 1 of 2024
With
IA No.: CAN 2 of 2024
Rajarhat Fishermen's Co-operative Society Limited
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and Ors.
In
W.P.L.R.T. 584 of 2006
Rajarhat Fishermen's Co-operative Society Limited
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and Ors.
For the petitioner/ :Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Ld. Sr. Advocate
Review applicant Mr. Saurabh Guha Thakurata, Advocate
Ms. Mallika Roy Chowdhury, ADvocate
Ms. Nilanjana Sarkar, Advocate,
Mr. Abhratanu Sarkar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, Ld. AGP
Mrs. Sujata Mukherjee, Advocate
Heard & Judgment on : September 6, 2024
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1.
IA No.: CAN 1 of 2024 is an application for condonation of delay.
Signed By :
ABHIJIT DAS
2. Review applicant approached the Supreme Court against the judgment
High Court of
Calcutta
9 th of September
2024 04:41:54 and order under review. Such Special Leave Petition was disposed of by
PM
RVW 179 of 2024
an order dated March 15, 2024 permitting filing of an application for
review. Review applicant in review was filed subsequent thereto.
3. In such circumstances, for the ends of justice, we condone the delay in
making and filing the application for review by the review applicant.
4. IA No.: CAN 1 of 2024 is disposed of accordingly.
5. IA No.: CAN 2 of 2024 is an application for appropriate order in the
review petition.
6. IA No.: CAN 2 of 2024 is disposed of on the consent of the parties to hear
and dispose of the review finally.
7. Review applicant seeks review of the judgment and order dated October
10, 2013 passed in W.P.L.R.T No.584 of 2006.
8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review applicant draws the
attention of the Court to paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgment and
order dated October 10, 2023. He submits that, in paragraph 22 of the
judgment and order under review, the Court noted that the review
applicant was claiming rights through Suburban Agriculture Dairy &
Fisherries Private Limited (SADFPL). He submits that, review applicant
was muted in the record of rights in respect of the plot concerned. State
was, therefore, aware of the right, title and interest of the review
applicant in respect of the plot concerned.
9. Referring to Section 10 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953,
Signed By :
ABHIJIT DAS
High Court of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review applicant submits that,
Calcutta
9 th of September
2024 04:41:54
PM as a person in possession, taking such right to be the basic minimum
RVW 179 of 2024
right of the review applicant, since the name of the review applicant stood
muted in the record of rights in respect of the plot concerned, review
applicant was entitled to a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1953.
Such notice was not given to the review applicant.
10. Drawing the attention of the Court to paragraph 23 of the judgment and
order under review, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review
applicant submits that, review applicant was not issued a notice under
Section 10(2) of the Act of 1953.
11. Learned Senior Advocate for the review applicants submits that, absence
of notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1953 vitiates the entire
proceedings. Therefore, according to him, there is an error apparent on
the face of the record requiring the review of the judgment and order of
which review is sought.
12. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review applicant draws the
attention of the Court to the order dated March 15, 2024 passed in the
Special Leave Petition filed by the review applicant directed against the
judgment and order under review. He submits that, the Special Leave
Petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a review.
13. State is represented.
14. It is trite law that an appeal cannot be allowed under the garb of the
review.
Signed By :
ABHIJIT DAS
High Court of
Calcutta
9 th of September
2024 04:41:54
PM
RVW 179 of 2024
15. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, issue of Section 10
both sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) thereof of the Act of 1953 were
elaborately dealt with by us in the judgment and order under review.
16. Notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1953 was issued to SADFPL.
Issue regarding Section 10 of the Act of 1953 was settled in diverse
proceedings between the State and SADFPL. Review applicant claims
that, it purchased a plot of land from SADFPL. Issue with regard to
Section 10 both sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) stood settled between
SADFPL and the State prior to the purchase made by the review
applicant from SADFPL. Review applicant is, therefore, bound by the
decision with regard to Section 10 of the Act of 1953 between SADFPL
and the State. Review applicant cannot be allowed to reopen such
issues.
17. There being no error on the face of the record, we find no ground to
entertain the memorandum of review.
18. Accordingly, RVW 179 of 2024 is dismissed without any order as to
costs.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
19. I agree.
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
Signed By :
ABHIJIT DAS (AD)
High Court of
Calcutta
9 th of September
2024 04:41:54
PM
