Calcutta High Court
Berhampore Bank Limited (In Liqn.) vs Ram Ranjan Chowdhury & Anr on 8 January, 2025
OCD-5 ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
IA No.GA-COM/9/2024
IN
CS/4240/1951
BERHAMPORE BANK LIMITED (IN LIQN.)
VS.
RAM RANJAN CHOWDHURY & ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK
Date: 8th January, 2025.
Mrs. Soma Chatterjee Mishra, Mr. Souri Ghosal, Mr. Supratik
Shymal, Advocates for the applicant.
Ms. Noelle Banerjee, Mr. Arindam Mandal, Mr. Aishik Chakraborty,
Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Advocates for the State.
Ms. Sarda Sha, Mr. Krishnayan Ghosh, Advocates for Court Liquidator.
The Court : By the present application following orders have been
sought for :
"a) Leave may be granted to the purchaser i.e as one of the occupants,
who have been occupying a portion of the said property to intervene as
applicant in this suit.
b) An order be made that on payment of amount being due to the plaintiff
out of the above mortgage property shall be realized in respect of
properties covered under the judgment passed by the Justice Manjula
Bose dated 9th June, 1989.
c) Leave may be granted to the purchaser/applicant to deposit the balance
amount in respect of the 02 bigha, 06 khatha, of land occupied by the
present petitioner in the Hon'ble Court as per order 9th June, 1989.
d) Directions may be given to the Court Liquidator appearing through
supervision officer to forthwith confirm the said sale in respect of those 02
bigha, 06 khatha, of land (approx) in favour of the said Purchaser, so that
the purchaser may get the conveyance in respect of the property.
2
e) An order be made to the court liquidator to supervise the property and
fourth with confirm the registered Deed of Conveyance office of the
Additional Registrar of Assurance (A.R.A.) Calcutta.
f) An order be made that the payment of the amount assessed as due to
the occupier as per the decree passed in Suit No. 4240 of 1951.
g) That unless appropriate order as prayed for is made the petitioner
abovenamed shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and shall be highly
prejudice."
The applicant contends as follows. The Berhampore Bank Limited
(in liquidation) through its Court Liquidator filed a suit being Suit No.4240
of 1951 before the Sub-ordinate Judge, Murshidabad contending inter alia
that one Ram Ranjan Chowdhury on 29th November, 1949 executed a
mortgage in favour of the plaintiff bank in respect of certain properties
belonging to him situated at Mouza-Boiragachi, P. S. Berhampore, District-
Murshidabad, West Bengal for obtaining a loan of a sum of Rs.72,000/- . A
preliminary decree was passed on 15 th January, 1954 for a sum of
Rs.1,13,071.98/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum until
realization. A final decree was passed on 7th August, 1956 in terms of the
preliminary decree. On 17th December, 1954 High Court Liquidator was
appointed Receiver over the mortgaged properties with right to sell the
properties. However, the sale as scheduled could not be held due to various
applications filed by the judgment debtor and his legal heirs from time to
time. Pursuant to the applications filed by the Court Liquidator, the entire
proceeding was transferred to the High Court at Calcutta. On 9 th June,
1989 an order was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granting
liberty to the person in occupation of the land of the judgment-debtor to
purchase the portion in occupation at a rate of Rs.400/- per bigha.
Pursuant thereto several other applications were filed and orders have been
passed by this Court directing for purchase by the occupant. The present
3
applicant is also an occupant of a portion of the land in question.
Accordingly, the applicant has sought for necessary order for purchase of
the portion of the property in his occupation.
By order dated 1st March, 2024 the Court Liquidator was directed
by a Co-ordinate Bench to furnish report. On perusal of the report of the
Court Liquidator since it was found that the plots in question i.e. 1341,
1343, 1383, 1180, 1034 and portion of 1352 were recorded in the name of
the Collector on behalf of Government of West Bengal, by order dated 25th
June, 2024 State of West Bengal was impleaded as a necessary party.
Thereafter by order dated 1st August, 2024 the State was directed to furnish
report. In compliance thereof, on 5th September, 2024, a report was
furnished by the State-respondents.
Ms. Noelle Banerjee, learned advocate representing the State
indicates that as per report, the land-in-question is vested with the State of
West Bengal and, therefore, the prayer sought for to purchase the property
is not at all sustainable.
Mr. Souri Ghosal, learned advocate for the applicant, on the
contrary, submits that the vesting is bad since the property was mortgaged
to the bank and at the time of vesting, the land was mortgaged with the
bank and thus such vesting should be declared null and void.
The report furnished by the State of West Bengal records that the
land comprised within L.R. Plot Nos. 1341, 1343, 1383, 1180, 1034 and
1352 is recorded in the name of Collector on behalf of Government of West
Bengal with full share and area in K. B. Khatian no.1 and from RS record it
is evident that the suit plots are included in the vested schedule of the BR
Case No.34 of 1968 and the land is vested to the State free from all
encumbrances. The applicant has filed his exception to the said report
contending that the vesting of the land comprised within plot nos. 1341,
1343, 1383, 1180, 1034 and 1352 within Mouza-Boiragachi, P. S.
Berhampore, District-Murshidabad is bad for the reason that at the time of
vesting the land did not belong to the erstwhile owner Ram Ranjan
Chowdhury and therefore, the vesting is an outcome of ignorance and
inaction on the part of the State. Further the vesting has been done in
contravention of sale orders of this Hon'ble Court. It is also contended that
the vesting is required to be declared as null and void and record of rights in
favour of the State of West Bengal are required to be cancelled by an
appropriate order of this Court. Considering such contention of the
applicant, there cannot be any quarrel that there has been vesting of the
land in question to the State of West Bengal. Even if the contention of the
applicant is presumed to be correct regarding the vesting being bad in law,
this Court is not the appropriate forum to enquiry and decide the
correctness of such vesting and pass orders for correction of record of
rights.
Since the aforementioned land has vested with the State of West
Bengal, the prayer of the applicant for purchase of a portion of the property
in his occupation falls short of merit and cannot be allowed.
Accordingly, GA-COM 9 of 2024 stands dismissed.
(BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.)
pa
