Land vesting requires a Section 6(5) hearing for the actual owner, Calcutta High Court rules

In 1927, the original owners gifted the disputed property to Bamunpukuria Sannyasi Memorial Middle English School.

A 1956 proceeding under Sections 6(1) and 6(5) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, was conducted against one of the donors, Ahibhusan Bharasha; the State maintained that the property consequently vested in it.

In 1961, the school brought a civil suit, resulting in a 1963 decree declaring the plaintiffs’ title and granting a permanent injunction.

The Court found from the judgment that Ahibhusan had sued as the school’s secretary and that the school was the real plaintiff and beneficiary of the decree.

In 1976, the petitioners acquired the property from the school by registered exchange deeds and later applied to have their names recorded as raiyats.

After the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer rejected the application, the appellate authority and the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal upheld that rejection. The petitioners challenged those decisions by writ petition.

1. Whether the property vested in the State when no proceeding under Section 6(5) of the 1953 Act was conducted in respect of the school, the owner at the relevant time.

2. Whether the civil court’s decree declaring the school’s title was barred by Section 46 of the 1953 Act, or could otherwise be disregarded by the land-reform authorities.

3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to have their names recorded as raiyats on the basis of their registered exchange deeds from the school.

Under Sections 6(1) and 6(5) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, the intermediary must be afforded the statutory opportunity to exercise the right of retention; where no option is exercised, the Revenue Officer must give the intermediary an opportunity of hearing before deciding what land may be retained and what may vest.

The Court held that vesting under Sections 4 and 5 does not become conclusive unless the Section 6(5) exercise is completed.

The then Section 46 of the 1953 Act barred civil-court jurisdiction only within its limited scope concerning matters assigned to the Act’s authorities, including tenant status and related record-of-rights matters; it did not bar a civil suit principally seeking a declaration of title.

Civil courts otherwise have jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and a suit for declaration of title may proceed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The school had acquired the property under the 1927 gift deed before the 1956 proceeding, which was conducted against Ahibhusan in his individual capacity rather than against the school as the then owner/intermediary.

As the record disclosed no Section 6(5) proceeding or hearing concerning the school, the asserted vesting had not attained finality.

The civil suit principally determined title based on the gift deed; the decree’s findings showed that the school was the real plaintiff, and its title claim fell outside the limited bar in Section 46.

The Tribunal and appellate authority therefore erred in treating the decree as without jurisdiction and in proceeding on the basis that the property had vested in the State.

It directed the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Minakhan, to correct the records of rights by recording the petitioners as raiyats in respect of the subject plot, in accordance with law and preferably by December 15, 2026.

There was no order as to costs.