TANDON BROTHERS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals for consideration before this Court are directed against a common judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court containing an order of reversal in favour of the State of West Bengal, has a chequered career, but before taking a run up as to its career being chequered, a brief factual reference needs to be adverted at this juncture for appreciation of the contentions raised in the matter.

(2.) The appellant is a registered partnership firm said to be the Proprietor of Tea Estate known as Rohini Tea Estate which stands purchased by the appellant in 1960 in a public auction held by the Official Liquidator attached to the High Court at Calcutta. The Tea Estate admittedly, comprised of a total area of 5042.86 acres of land. Though the appellant is said to have spent a substantial amount of money but we are not inclined to go on to the details thereof, neither the veracity of the same need to be gone into by reason of the peculiar factual situation and the issues involved in the appeal.

(3.) On the factual score it appears that on 1st November, 1962, a notice under West Bengal Acquisition Act, 1953 was issued intimating thereunder that lands measuring more or less 4959.27 acres comprising the Tea Estate have vested in the State Government free from encumbrances under Section 5 of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. While some submissions though advanced before the Court in regard to the effect of the statute but we need not dilate on this score since on a proper conspectus of the issue, this Court earlier categorically came to a conclusion that by and under West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 pre-existing right, title and interest in the land stood extinguished and ceased to have effect on and from the notified date i.e. June 1, 1956 and stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances (vide State of West Bengal v. Suburban Agriculture Dairy and Fisheries Pvt. Ltd., 1993 Suppl. (4) SCC 674 : (1993 AIR SCW 2280 : AIR 1993 SC 2103)) and on the wake of the aforesaid, further deliberations on the issue are neither required nor we are entering the arena therefor and if we may so, fairness has prompted the learned Advocates to also reach unanimity in regard thereto.