AZIZUS SUBHAN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner's grand-father, Khan Bahadur Shamsul Alam, was a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Sometime in 1910, while appearing for the prosecution in the Alipore Bomb Case, he became a victim of a political murder on the stairs of this High Court. The then Government of India granted a. Sanad in favour of Mussammat Moslema Khatoon, the widow of the deceased, and to his male descendants. A copy of the Sanad is annexed to the petition and marked with the letter "a". Mussammat Moslema Khatoon died sometime in June 1950. The petitioner states that he, being the eldest surviving male member of the family, inherited the grant in terms of the Sanad. In the year 1952-53 the Khas Mahal Authorities instituted certificate proceedings against him at Berhampore for realisation of arrears of rent. Proceedings were also taken under section 7 of the Revenue Sale Laws. The petitioner thereupon instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 37 of 1954 in the Court of the Munsif at Lalbagh in the district of Murshidabad, under section 34 of the Public Demands Recovery Act for cancellation and/or modification of the certificate and for other reliefs. In the said suit, the nature of the interest which the petitioner enjoyed under the Sanad had to be examined. The learned Munsif held, inter-alia, that the interest enjoyed by the petitioner could not strictly be termed either as an "estate" or as a "tenure" as defined in the Revenue Sale Laws, the Bengal Tenancy Act or any other Act for the time being in force. He held that it was a Jaigir estate of a special class, and having its special incidents as determined by the Sanad. This decision of the learned Munsif which is dated the 25th April 1955, was the subject matter of an appeal before the District Judge of Murshidabad. The learned District Judge has held in his judgment dated the 30th August 1957, that the interest of the petitioner was a Jaigir, but it was an 'estate' and not a 'tenure' because it had not the characteristics of a full-fledged tenure.

(2.) THE West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (W. B. Act I of 1954), came into operation in 1954. Section 4 of the said Act lays down that the State Government may from time to time, by notification, declare that with effect from the date mentioned in the notification, all estates and the rights of every intermediary in each such estate situated in any district or part of a district specified in the notification shall vest in the State free from all in cumbrances. On or about the 16th August 1954, in exercise of powers vested in the State Government, a notification was issued under section 4 vesting in the State Government, all estates and rights of intermediaries in such estates in the district of Murshidabad situate in the State of West Bengal. The notice was gazette on the 11th November 1954. On or about the 15th April 1955, a proclamation was issued in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 (2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules, 1954. A copy of this proclamation is annexed to the affidavit of Sri Rabindra Nath Roy affirmed on the 18th February 1956 and marked with the letter "a". This proclamation states that a notification under section 4 of the said Act had been published declaring all estates and rights in such an estate of every intermediary situated in the district of Murshidabad to have vested in the State of West Bengal. The proclamation then proceeds to state as follows:

(3.) ACCORDING to the respondents, the interest of the petitioner is an 'estate' and that he can be properly called an intermediary, and the estate and the right of the petitioner in such an estate, has vested in Government. According to the petitioner, the interest enjoyed by him under the Sanad is not an 'estate' and he is not an 'intermediary' as defined in the said Act. Consequently, it is alleged that the said Act has not affected the interest of the petitioner and so far as he is concerned, nothing has vested in the State. This application has been made to resolve the dispute. The immediate reason for this application is that the State of West Bengal has treated the estate as vested in itself, and has been realising rents from the actual occupiers of the lands and this the petitioner objects to.