Annulled pattas require eviction and restoration of possession under Section 49(3); Calcutta High Court says contempt tribunal can enforce it without sending parties to civil court

The petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest purchased approximately 8.18 acres of land at Mouza Haripur, Namkhana, South 24 Parganas, through registered conveyances, obtained mutation, and paid revenue in respect of the land.

In 1969, the Revenue Officer initiated a Big Raiyat Case against the vendor, without notice to the petitioners’ predecessor, and purportedly vested the land in the State.

The petitioners thereafter pursued successive proceedings before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal seeking mutation, correction of records, and protection of possession. Despite interim directions, pattas were granted to third parties in 2002.

The Tribunal subsequently set aside the orders in the 1969 vesting proceeding and directed reconsideration.

On a reference under Section 57B(3) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, the SDL & LRO, Kakdwip, by order dated 18 October 2004, permitted retention of 25 acres, including the petitioners’ 8.18 acres.

Pursuant to proceedings under Section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, the SDO, Kakdwip, annulled the pattas granted to third parties on 26 April 2013.

Nevertheless, the authorities did not restore possession to the petitioners. The Tribunal ultimately directed correction of the records of rights and recording of the petitioners’ names.

In contempt proceedings, the Tribunal accepted the BL&LRO’s compliance report showing correction of the records but refused to direct delivery of possession, holding that recovery of possession was outside the scope of the 1955 Act and could be sought only before a civil court.

Whether compliance with an order directing action under Section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, necessarily includes consequential action under Sections 49(3) and 49(3A), including eviction of occupants and delivery of possession.

Whether the Tribunal, exercising contempt jurisdiction, could direct delivery of possession to the petitioners to give meaningful effect to the annulment of the pattas and correction of the records of rights.

Whether the petitioners were required to institute separate civil proceedings for recovery of possession.

Section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 empowers the Revenue Officer, after hearing the relevant persons and making the prescribed enquiry, to annul a settlement or settlement and transfer obtained by mistake, fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or otherwise.

Section 49(3) mandates that, upon such annulment, the Revenue Officer shall enforce delivery of possession of the land to the Collector after evicting the person in actual occupation, while Section 49(3A) authorises requisitioning police assistance for that purpose.

The Court held that Sections 49(2), 49(3) and 49(3A) operate as a connected statutory scheme, with possession-related action automatically following an order under Section 49(2).

Relying on Urmila Halder v. State of West Bengal, (1998) 1 Cal LJ 171, the Court held that the State cannot take advantage of its own wrongful grant of pattas over land that had not vested in it.

The Court further applied the contempt principles stated in Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, (2023) 17 SCC 545, Monoj Roy v. Premanshu Mondal, SLP(C) No. 12318/2025, and Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3727, under which a contempt court may issue consequential directions to nullify advantages obtained through contumacious conduct.

Although contempt jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be converted into original or appellate jurisdiction, as recognised in Keshab Narayan Banerjee v. Srijit Dutta Gupta, (2007) 4 CHN 996, it may be used to secure effective implementation of the order under contempt.

The High Court found that the Tribunal’s direction to comply with Section 49(2), together with the direction to ensure compliance, necessarily encompassed the statutory consequences under Sections 49(3) and 49(3A).

Merely correcting the records of rights did not constitute complete compliance because the pattas had already been annulled and the third-party occupants continued in possession.

Although the BL&LRO was given the benefit of doubt regarding deliberate or wilful disobedience, the Tribunal could not treat the matter as fully complied with while the statutory obligation to evict the occupants and secure delivery of possession remained unperformed.

The Court rejected the State’s contention that possession could be obtained only through a separate proceeding or civil suit.

Since the State had granted pattas over land which, according to the prior proceedings, was retained by the petitioners’ predecessor and had not vested in the State, it could not rely on its own wrongful act to defeat the petitioners’ entitlement to possession.

The direction to deliver possession to the Collector under Section 49(3) was therefore understood, in the circumstances, as a mechanism for restoring possession to the lawful claimants.

The Tribunal consequently possessed sufficient contempt jurisdiction to issue consequential directions necessary to neutralise the continuing effect of the annulled pattas and implement its earlier order.

It held that enforcement of Section 49(2) necessarily required action under Sections 49(3) and 49(3A), including eviction of the persons in actual occupation and delivery of possession.

The SDO, Kakdwip, was directed to enforce delivery of possession of the subject plots to the petitioners, using such force as may be required, within eight weeks from communication of the order.

There was no order as to costs.