PULIN BEHARI MAITY Vs. THE STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Second Appeals namely S.A. 810 of 1973 and S.A. 1649 of 1973 have respectively arisen out of two title appeals namely Title Appeal No. 200 of 1971 and Title Appeal No. 210 of 1971. Title Appeal No. 200 of 1971 on its part arose out of Title Suit No. 477 of 1965. That suit was filed by one Pulin Maity. The other Title Appeal namely 210 of 1971 had its origin in Title Suit No. 478 of 1965 which was filed by one Bankim Mondal and others. The plaintiff Pulin Maity's case before the trial court was that he had simply 29.41 acres of land within the permissible ceiling provided in the Estates Acquisition Act. This 29 acres of land according to him comprised both agricultural and non-agricultural as also bastu lands. His grievance before the trial court was that although the land was within the ceiling and although he had filed 'B' form statement (Ext. 2) these lands were nevertheless shown as vested in the R.S. record of rights (Ext. 4 series) to his prejudice. He made a prayer before the trial court that his title to the lands (ka schedule properties) be declared in his favour and the State Government (defendant-respondent) be permanently restrained from interfering with his possession of the lands. The other title suit namely Title Suit No. 478 of 1965 was filed not by Pulin Maity but by one Bankim Mondal and others. To this Bankim Mondal and others, Pulin Maity had earlier sold a portion of his land (kha schedule properties) by registered kobala dated 29.4.67 (Ext. 1). The grievance of Bankim Modal and others before the trial court was that this purchased land (Kha schedule) was too shown as vested in the record of rights (Ext. 4 series) to their prejudice. Hence Banking Mondal and others prayed before the trial court that their title in respect of the kha schedule land might be declared in their favour restraining the State respondent from interfering with their possession therein. Both the above suits were dismissed by the learned trial court on the observations inter alia that the lands both ka and kha schedule had vested in the State and that Pulur Maity had no right to retain the lands under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, he having lands much in excess of the retainable ceiling.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the trial court both Pulin Maity and Bankim Mondal filed title appeals. The two title appeals were heard analogously by the appellate court. Title Appeal No. 210 of 1971 preferred by Bankim was dismissed by the appellate court on the ground that the lands (kha schedule) were rightly shown as vested in the record of rights and that the predecessor-in-interest of Bankim Modal namely Pulin had no right to retain the lands. The other title Appeal No. 200 of 1971 filed by Pulin Maity himself was however allowed in part. The learned appellate court found that Pulint Maity had title in respect of the tank plot No. 1289, danga-plot No. 917. bamboo clump plot No. 1341, khamar-plot No 1326, bamboo clump-plot No. 1330 and doba-plot No. 1301. The learned appellate court found that these lands of the ka schedule were not liable to vest in the State Government. The learned appellate court found that in respect of all other plots of the ka schedule of Title Suit No. 477 of 1965, Pulin had no title. This Title Appeal was thus allowed in part. Being aggrieved by this judgment of the 1st appellate court, Pulin has filed this Second Appeal bearing No. 810 of 1973. Similarly, being aggrieved by the judgment of the 1st appellate court Bankim Mondal, the plaintiff-respondent has filed this Second Appeal No 1649 of 1973. 1 have heard these two second appeals analogously and the following judgment will govern both the appeals.

(3.) Mr. Prabir Kumar Samanta, learned advocate appearing for the appellants in both the appeals has taken me through the plaint to impress upon me the fact that the case of his client that was consistently put before the two courts below was to the effect that be (Pulin) had simply 29.41 acres of land comprising agricultural, non-agricultural and bastu land. that these lands were all below the retainable ceiling and that in his absence and without hearing him the least, the State respondent had put the 'vesting note' in the K.S. record of rights (Ext. 4 series) resulting in grave injustice to Mr. Samanta's clients. Mr. Samanta has invited my attention to the evidence of P.W.1. Pasupati son of Pulin Maity wherein it was made clear that the total land in their possession amounted to 29.41 acres, that after filing of 'B' form no hearing was made by the settlement officer and that they had no more than 18 acres of agricultural land and no m )re than 5 acres of bastu land (vide page 1 and 5 of P.W.1). Mr. Samanta has strenuously argued that this part of the evidence of P.W.1 stood absolutely unimpeached on the record and that the State respondent never adduced an iota of evidence as against this evidence adduced by his clients. Mr. Samanta took me through the written statement filed by the State wherein it was adumbrated that Puliri Maaity had lands much in excess of the retainable ceiling. This portion of the defence however was never sought to be proved by adducing evidence at the trial. Mr. Samanta has therefore argued that the materials on the record have thus remained one sided and there is no good reason as to why the evidence of P.W.1 was not accepted as true in the absence of any evidence whatsoever to the contrary. I have gone through the materials on the record carefully. Mr. Samanta's grievance appears to me to be substantial. The preamble of the Estates Acquisition Act and the various provisions thereof do not suggest far less lay down anything to show that the State had the sliddhtest intention to grab the properties of the intermediaries. On the contrary, insertion of such sections like Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act makes it abdundantly clear that the State's desire was to see that the intermediaries are rather helped in the matter of their retaining various lands of course within a certain limit. The Act provides inter alia that an intermediary can retain 25 acres of agricultural land, 15 acres of non-agricultural land and 5 acres of bastu land. This means and implies that an intermediary can in all retain 45 acres of land. Sub-section 5 of Sec. 6 makes it abundantly clear that the State is eager and enthusiastic enough to see that an intermediary do retain this quantity of land. I am tempted to quote below sub-section 5 of Sec. 6 :