Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1980Cal61
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J.1. These Full Bench References have been made by a Division Bench consisting of Sabyasachi Mukharji and Murari Mohan Dutt, JJ. under paragraph 2 read with paragraph 7 of Chapter VII of the Appellate Side Rules for a final decision. The only question for determination is whether the lease-hold interest of the respondent Ukhara Forest and Fisheries Ltd., in 219.41 acres and 233.81 acres of forest lands situate in the district of Burdwan, vested in the State of West Bengal by virtue of the provisions of Clause (aa) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), with retrospective effect from Baisakh 1, 1362 B. S. corresponding to April 15, 1955, (sic) being the date of vesting as mentioned in the Notification dated August 16 1954, published under Section 4 of the Act.2. Initially, the Act did not define a 'forest'. Section 4(1) of the Act provided as follows:--'Section 4: Notification vestin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1975Cal275
ORDERAnil Kumar Sen, J.1. On August 8, 1964 the Government of West Bengal issued a notification under Section 4 of the West Bengal Agricultural Lands and Fisheries (Acquisition and Resettlement) Act (West Bengal Act XVIII of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) declaring its intention to acquire a number of plots specified in Schedule 'D' to the notification measuring in all 248.70 acres. These plots constitute a fishery or fisheries legally known as Bantra Beel which extend over several moujas all within the Police Station Baraset, District 24 Parganas. The purpose of the acquisition as set out in the notification is as follows :'Whereas it appears to the Governor that the cultivation and production of agricultural lands in the area described in Schedule 'A' below is affected injuriously by the establishment and existence of a fishery it is hereby declared that for the purpose of protection of lands described in Schedule 'A' and cultivation thereof, the Governor intends to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1974Cal94,77CWN410
ORDERAnil K. Sen, J.1. This Rule was issued on a Writ petition wherein the two petitioners, challenging the validity of a series of notices under Section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) issued by the Revenue Officer 'C' camp Baraset, have prayed for quashing the several proceedings initiated on such notices. The proceedings are case No. 16 of mouja Kaipul, cases Nos. 26, 29 to 38 mouja Bilbauchandi and cases Nos. 131 to138 and 143 to 147 of mouja Matiagacha. 2. The case of the petitionersshortly is that they were the tenants inrespect of a vast fishery commonly knownas Bilbouchandi spread over the threemoujas as aforesaid within Police Station Baraset. It is recorded in severalkhatians all recorded as tank-fisheries.After the vesting of the interest of theintermediary they became tenants of theState in respect of such fisheries. Thesebeing tank fisheries within the meaningof Section 6(1)(e) of the said Act theyare entitled to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1974Cal99,77CWN157
B.C. Mitra, J.1. The subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, is the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Fisheries (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965, hereafter referred to as the Act The appellant is the owner of a Fishery in the District of 24-Par-ganas, and claims to have spent Rs. 15,000/-in repairing embankment and in clearing weeds. He also claims to have spent a large sum of money to make the Fishery fit for pisciculture and also claims to have spent other sums for maintenance of the Fishery.2. On November 11, 1966, he received a Notice that the Fishery had been requisitioned under Section 4 of the Act, directing him to deliver possession of the Fishery to a representative of the Land Acquisition Department on November 13, 1966. Symbolic possession of the Fishery was taken on that date. Thereupon the appellant obtained a rule nisi on a writ petition. This rule was discharged by a judgment and order dated April 17, 1972 which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1973Cal168,77CWN129
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This appeal hat been referred to the Special Bench by aDivision Bench consisting of P. N. Mookerjee and Amiya Kumar Mookerji, JJ. under Part I, Chapter II, Rule 1, Proviso (ii) read with Chapter VII, Rule 2 of the Appellate Side Rules. The point of law which induced the learned Judges of the Division Bench to refer the appeal to the Special Bench is as follows:--Whether, in the case of a tank fishery, (that is, a tank which is being used for pisciculture or for fishing), where the right of pisciculture or fishing is, at the date of Vesting under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, held under a lease from the owner intermediary, Section 6(2) proviso Of the Act will have any application, and, if so, what will be its effect and what will be the rights of the particular intermediary and the particular lessee in respect of the said tank fishery including the right of pisciculture or fishing under the relevant provisions of this Statute, namely, Sections 5, 6(1) and 6(2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC394; [1968]1SCR561
Bachawat. J.1. In 1954, the Assam Government took possession of the lands of the respondent several other person situated in the District of Kamrup for the construction of the Pagdalia embankment. In 1955, the Assam Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and Prevention of Erosion Ordinance, 1955 (Assam Ordinance No. 2 of 1955) was passed enabling the State Government to acquire lands for works or other development measures in connection with flood control or prevention of erosion. The Ordinance was replaced by the Assam Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and Prevention of Erosion Act, 1955 (Assam Act No. 6 of 1955) which was passed on April 11, 1955 with the assent of the President. In April 1956, the State Government passed on order in writing acquiring the lands taken over in 1954 for the construction of the Pagdalia embankment under s. 3 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1955. It seems that the reference to the Ordinance was a mistake and the acquisition was made under Act No. 6 of 1955. On A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1958Cal114,62CWN49
ORDERSinha, J.1. The petitioners in this case were in possession of certain jalkars in touzi Nos. 199 and 486, respectively, of the Murshidabad Collectorate. They held under a document, a vernacular copy of which has been annexed to the affidavit of Bhupati Nath Bhattacharya affirmed on the 5th of July, 1957. This document is described as a 'perpetual lease letting in darpatni 18 jalkar mehals on an yearly rental of Rs. 1,941/- for consideration of Rs. 1,941/-'. The document is executed by one Jagabandhu Roy of Devanandpur Kanchantola in favour of one Faresh Nath Pan-dey. It recites that the said Jagabandhu Roy grants a darpatni of certain jalkars in touzi No. 199 in favour of the said Paresh Nath Pandey. It further recites that the grantor had a patni right in the said Jalkars and was granting the darpatni right therein to the grantee for the consideration mentioned in the document. The nature of the jaikars does not appear from the document excepting that the recitals indicate that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1958Cal65
B.P. Mookerjee, J. 1. This is a defendants' appeal and is directed against a decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Hooghly declaring that a sale which had taken place on the 18th October 1944, in a certificate case by the Certificate Officer of Hooghly was without jurisdiction and null and void. It was further declared that the plaintiff's interest in any portion of the disputed property had not been affected. The plaintiff was entitled to recover possession.2. It is not necessary to refer in detail to the allegations made in the pleadings or to the different issues which were raised. The only question which requires consideration by this Court in the present appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred under Section 37 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act.3. Allegations were made in the plaint that the sale in question was affected by fraud. The Court below has found against the plaintiff on this point. On the materials in the record that conclusion appears to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1956Ori114
P.V.B. Rao, J. 1. These two petitions are heard together as they involve common questions of law and fact, and are disposed of by this judgment. 2. O. J. C. 81 of 1955 was tiled by 41 petitioners on 24-2-1955, and O. J. C. 152 of 1955 was filed by 48 petitioners on 2-5-55. The petitioners in both the applications are residents of village Harinikuli, Chaumukha, Dagara, Nagudi, Saranjapur, Naighati Pakundi, Jamukunda, Manikisimulia, Jugadihand Badasaha in the district of Balasore bordering on the western flank of the river Subarnarekha at its lowest reach before it falls into the Bay of Bengal. These applications are filed under Article 228 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party, the State of Orissa, to refrain from proceeding with the land acquisition proceedings as the notification issued by the Government under Section 4, read with Section 17(4), Land Acquisition Act, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1955Cal555,1955CriLJ1356
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J.1. The petitioner is being proceeded against for alleged infringements of the provisions of the Bengal Highways Act 3 of 1925 as amended by the West Bengal Act 17 of 1953 before a Magistrate at Balurghat. It appears that there are two proceedings pending against him for violation of the Bengal Highways Act and the learned Magistrate who is dealing with them has amalgamated these two proceedings and directed the two complaints in the two cases to be merged in one.The encroachments complained of in the two cases are entirely different and they constitute if proved wholly separate infringements even according to the prosecution. Complaint is now made that by reason of the consolidation of these two proceedings into one there is chance or likelihood of prejudice accruing to the petitioner.2. I think there is considerable force in this contention. The mere fact that the petitioner happens to be the same person proceeded against in both the proceedings and that th...
Tag this Judgment!