Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 783
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. of 2025
[ARISING OUT OF SLP [C] NO.2675 of 2022]
SRI PRASANTA KUMAR PAL & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning
1
the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the High Court in a Writ
2
Petition . Vide aforesaid order, the High Court had set aside the
3
order dated 11.01.2019 passed by the Tribunal in Original
Application No.452 of 2008.
3. Briefly, the argument raised by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants is that one Iswar Chandra Pal had
executed a registered gift deed dated 07.12.1967 in favour of his
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHA SUNDRIYAL
Date: 2025.05.26
16:25:05 IST
Reason:
sons and daughters. Vide the aforesaid Gift Deed 20.88½ acres of
1
High Court at Calcutta
2
W.P.L.R.T. No.31 of 2020
3
West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal
2
land was transferred. The same was given effect to in the revenue
records on 26.05.1969 and the land was transferred in the
respective shares of the beneficiaries. Considering the balance
land of the said Iswar Chandra Pal, the Government had declared
8.80 acres of land as surplus area and had taken possession thereof.
Iswar Chandra Pal died in the year 1975.
nd4 rd5
4. Subsequently, after the 2 and 3 Amendment in the
6 7
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 , proceedings under Section
14T(3) read with Sections 14M & 14S of the 1955 Act were initiated to
determine the surplus land and vest the same with the state in
respect of the land held by late Iswar Chandra Pal. During the
8
pendency thereof, further proceedings under Section 14T(5) read
with Section 14T (8) & (9) of the 1955 Act were initiated to find out as
to whether the gift deed executed by Iswar Chandra Pal in favour of
his sons and daughters in the year 1967 was a benami transaction.
Vide order dated 16.06.1997 passed by the Revenue Officer the gift
deed executed by late Iswar Chandra Pal in favour of his sons and
daughters on 07.12.1967 was held to be a benami transaction. After
adding the aforesaid area, surplus area was again redetermined. It
was held that out of the total land area of 26.55 acres, the family of
4
Came into force on 07.08.1969
5
Came into force on 12.05.1989
6
Hereinafter ‘the 1955 Act’
7
Case No. 52 of 1996
8
Case No. 3 of 1997
3
late Iswar Chandra Pal shall be entitled to get 8.65 acres of land in
non-irrigated area. Balance 17.90 acres of land was declared to be
surplus.
5. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Revenue
9
Officer, the appellants preferred appeals before the Appellate
Authority. Vide order dated 18.12.2007 the matter was remanded to
the Revenue Officer, limited to the extent of selection of the area for
retention of the land beyond the surplus area.
6. Aggrieved against this order, the appellants preferred
10
an appeal before the Tribunal, which was accepted vide order
dated 11.01.2019 and the order of Revenue Officer was set-aside.
7. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal, the
2
State preferred Writ Petition in the High Court, which was accepted
by the impugned order and the matter was remitted back.
8. The argument raised by learned counsel for the
appellant is that the observation of the Revenue Officer, as prima
facie accepted by the High Court is that the transaction of gift deed
dated 07.12.1967 was a Benami transaction is totally erroneous as
the amendment came into effect almost two decades after
registered gift deed was executed. No one could imagine in 1967
that they need to plan the holding of the land in a way that it is not
9
Appeal Case No 16(T)/02 & Appeal Case No. 17(T)/02
10
Original Application No. 452 of 2008
4
declared surplus in future. The gift deed was a registered
document, which was given effect to in the revenue records on
26.05.1969, much prior to the amendment.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, learned senior
counsel appearing for the State submitted that the matter had to be
taken up suo motu for the reason that Section 14T(5) of the
Amendment Act, 1986 empowered the Revenue Officer to re-open
old matters, as the amendment had been given retrospective effect.
The transaction being Benami, suo motu power was rightly
exercised by the Revenue Officer. It is further submitted that a
wrong finding has been given by the High Court regarding the
Amendment Act, 1986 being not retrospective as the vires of
Section 14T(5) of the Amendment Act, 1986 has already been
upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court in Mrinal Kanti Pal v.
11
State of West Bengal .
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the paper book.
11. In our view, the facts of the case clearly suggest that the
opinion prima facie expressed by the High Court that the transaction
of execution of gift deed by Late Iswar Chandra Pal on 07.12.1967
seems to be Benami is erroneous on the face of it.
11
(2000) SCC OnLine Cal 513.
5
12. The facts on record, which are not in dispute are that the
aforesaid gift deed was executed by Late Iswar Chandra Pal on
07.12.1967, gifting some part of his land holding to his three sons
and three daughters, leaving substantial portion with him. When
calculated in terms of the 1955 Act, an area of 8.80 acres was
declared as surplus and the same vested in the State.
13. The aforesaid registered gift deed dated 07.12.1967 was
given effect to in the revenue records on 26.05.1969. It will be
absurd to accept the argument that such a transaction can be held to
be Benami with reference to an amendment carried in the 1955 Act
with effect from 12.05.1989, as no one could possibly dream that the
land holding had to be distributed amongst the family members to
avoid it being declared as surplus on a later date.
14. The genuineness of the registered gift deed executed on
07.12.1967 could not be put in question two decades later only
because an amendment had been carried out in 1989 with
retrospective effect.
15. If that argument is to be accepted then late Iswar
Chandra Pal could have distributed his entire holding amongst his
children and saved every inch of land. But the fact remains that even
after gifting part of holding to his sons and daughters, still 8.80
6
acres of land in his hands was found to be surplus, which was
declared as such and vested in the State.
16. In the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, in our view,
the High Court has committed an error in setting aside the order
passed by the Tribunal by remitting the case for examination afresh
as no two opinions could be formed on the basis of the facts as
discussed above.
17. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed.
Consequently, the impugned order passed by the High Court in
W.P.L.R.T. No.31 of 2020 dated 08.09.2021 is set aside and the order
of the Tribunal in Original Application No.452 of 2008 dated
11.01.2019 stands restored.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
19. Before parting with the judgment, it needs to be
mentioned here that all the figures are taken from the pleadings,
which contain apparent errors at several places.
……..………………………...J.
[RAJESH BINDAL]
…………………….………….J.
[NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 08, 2025.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO.20673 of 2022
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. … Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PRASANTA KUMAR PAL & ORS. …Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. In view of the detailed order passed in Civil Appeal
No.___ /2025 @ SLP [C] NO.2675 of 2022, arising from the
same impugned order, we find no case is made out for grant
of leave in the present petition.
2. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
………………………………...J.
[RAJESH BINDAL]
…………………….………….J.
[NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 08, 2025.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 783
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. of 2025
[ARISING OUT OF SLP [C] NO.2675 of 2022]
SRI PRASANTA KUMAR PAL & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning
1
the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the High Court in a Writ
2
Petition . Vide aforesaid order, the High Court had set aside the
3
order dated 11.01.2019 passed by the Tribunal in Original
Application No.452 of 2008.
3. Briefly, the argument raised by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants is that one Iswar Chandra Pal had
executed a registered gift deed dated 07.12.1967 in favour of his
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHA SUNDRIYAL
Date: 2025.05.26
16:25:05 IST
Reason:
sons and daughters. Vide the aforesaid Gift Deed 20.88½ acres of
1
High Court at Calcutta
2
W.P.L.R.T. No.31 of 2020
3
West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal
2
land was transferred. The same was given effect to in the revenue
records on 26.05.1969 and the land was transferred in the
respective shares of the beneficiaries. Considering the balance
land of the said Iswar Chandra Pal, the Government had declared
8.80 acres of land as surplus area and had taken possession thereof.
Iswar Chandra Pal died in the year 1975.
nd4 rd5
4. Subsequently, after the 2 and 3 Amendment in the
6 7
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 , proceedings under Section
14T(3) read with Sections 14M & 14S of the 1955 Act were initiated to
determine the surplus land and vest the same with the state in
respect of the land held by late Iswar Chandra Pal. During the
8
pendency thereof, further proceedings under Section 14T(5) read
with Section 14T (8) & (9) of the 1955 Act were initiated to find out as
to whether the gift deed executed by Iswar Chandra Pal in favour of
his sons and daughters in the year 1967 was a benami transaction.
Vide order dated 16.06.1997 passed by the Revenue Officer the gift
deed executed by late Iswar Chandra Pal in favour of his sons and
daughters on 07.12.1967 was held to be a benami transaction. After
adding the aforesaid area, surplus area was again redetermined. It
was held that out of the total land area of 26.55 acres, the family of
4
Came into force on 07.08.1969
5
Came into force on 12.05.1989
6
Hereinafter ‘the 1955 Act’
7
Case No. 52 of 1996
8
Case No. 3 of 1997
3
late Iswar Chandra Pal shall be entitled to get 8.65 acres of land in
non-irrigated area. Balance 17.90 acres of land was declared to be
surplus.
5. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Revenue
9
Officer, the appellants preferred appeals before the Appellate
Authority. Vide order dated 18.12.2007 the matter was remanded to
the Revenue Officer, limited to the extent of selection of the area for
retention of the land beyond the surplus area.
6. Aggrieved against this order, the appellants preferred
10
an appeal before the Tribunal, which was accepted vide order
dated 11.01.2019 and the order of Revenue Officer was set-aside.
7. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal, the
2
State preferred Writ Petition in the High Court, which was accepted
by the impugned order and the matter was remitted back.
8. The argument raised by learned counsel for the
appellant is that the observation of the Revenue Officer, as prima
facie accepted by the High Court is that the transaction of gift deed
dated 07.12.1967 was a Benami transaction is totally erroneous as
the amendment came into effect almost two decades after
registered gift deed was executed. No one could imagine in 1967
that they need to plan the holding of the land in a way that it is not
9
Appeal Case No 16(T)/02 & Appeal Case No. 17(T)/02
10
Original Application No. 452 of 2008
4
declared surplus in future. The gift deed was a registered
document, which was given effect to in the revenue records on
26.05.1969, much prior to the amendment.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, learned senior
counsel appearing for the State submitted that the matter had to be
taken up suo motu for the reason that Section 14T(5) of the
Amendment Act, 1986 empowered the Revenue Officer to re-open
old matters, as the amendment had been given retrospective effect.
The transaction being Benami, suo motu power was rightly
exercised by the Revenue Officer. It is further submitted that a
wrong finding has been given by the High Court regarding the
Amendment Act, 1986 being not retrospective as the vires of
Section 14T(5) of the Amendment Act, 1986 has already been
upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court in Mrinal Kanti Pal v.
11
State of West Bengal .
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the paper book.
11. In our view, the facts of the case clearly suggest that the
opinion prima facie expressed by the High Court that the transaction
of execution of gift deed by Late Iswar Chandra Pal on 07.12.1967
seems to be Benami is erroneous on the face of it.
11
(2000) SCC OnLine Cal 513.
5
12. The facts on record, which are not in dispute are that the
aforesaid gift deed was executed by Late Iswar Chandra Pal on
07.12.1967, gifting some part of his land holding to his three sons
and three daughters, leaving substantial portion with him. When
calculated in terms of the 1955 Act, an area of 8.80 acres was
declared as surplus and the same vested in the State.
13. The aforesaid registered gift deed dated 07.12.1967 was
given effect to in the revenue records on 26.05.1969. It will be
absurd to accept the argument that such a transaction can be held to
be Benami with reference to an amendment carried in the 1955 Act
with effect from 12.05.1989, as no one could possibly dream that the
land holding had to be distributed amongst the family members to
avoid it being declared as surplus on a later date.
14. The genuineness of the registered gift deed executed on
07.12.1967 could not be put in question two decades later only
because an amendment had been carried out in 1989 with
retrospective effect.
15. If that argument is to be accepted then late Iswar
Chandra Pal could have distributed his entire holding amongst his
children and saved every inch of land. But the fact remains that even
after gifting part of holding to his sons and daughters, still 8.80
6
acres of land in his hands was found to be surplus, which was
declared as such and vested in the State.
16. In the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, in our view,
the High Court has committed an error in setting aside the order
passed by the Tribunal by remitting the case for examination afresh
as no two opinions could be formed on the basis of the facts as
discussed above.
17. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed.
Consequently, the impugned order passed by the High Court in
W.P.L.R.T. No.31 of 2020 dated 08.09.2021 is set aside and the order
of the Tribunal in Original Application No.452 of 2008 dated
11.01.2019 stands restored.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
19. Before parting with the judgment, it needs to be
mentioned here that all the figures are taken from the pleadings,
which contain apparent errors at several places.
……..………………………...J.
[RAJESH BINDAL]
…………………….………….J.
[NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 08, 2025.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO.20673 of 2022
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. … Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PRASANTA KUMAR PAL & ORS. …Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. In view of the detailed order passed in Civil Appeal
No.___ /2025 @ SLP [C] NO.2675 of 2022, arising from the
same impugned order, we find no case is made out for grant
of leave in the present petition.
2. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
………………………………...J.
[RAJESH BINDAL]
…………………….………….J.
[NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 08, 2025.