Territorial division and constitutional transfer of land upheld where map evidence failed and practical construction of the amendment prevailed

The Court treated the appellants' map as unreliable because it was neither shown to be a published map for public sale nor an official map, and it held that the burden did not shift to the respondents merely because territorial facts were disputed. It construed the constitutional amendment governing Berubari Union No. 12 as permitting a practical half-and-half division from the north-eastern corner of Debiganj Thana, not a geometrically exact line, so the division was capable of implementation. It further held that the Chilahati area remained part of the territory allotted to Pakistan, that mistaken continued administration by West Bengal did not alter that position, and that the adverse possession plea was unavailable on the record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants' map was admissible and reliable, and whether the burden lay on the respondents to prove that the proposed division of Berubari Union No. 12 could be implemented; (ii) whether the partition of Berubari Union No. 12 under the Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960 was incapable of implementation on the appellants' construction of the agreement; (iii) whether the proposed transfer of the Chilahati area was constitutionally invalid, including the claim based on West Bengal territory and adverse possession.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants' map was admissible and reliable, and whether the burden lay on the respondents to prove that the proposed division of Berubari Union No. 12 could be implemented.

Analysis: The map produced by the appellants was not shown to be a published map generally offered for public sale, and it was not an official map made under governmental authority. Its accuracy was also not established. The Court accepted the trial court's appraisal that the respondents' maps were reliable. The burden remained on the appellants to establish illegality or unconstitutionality in the proposed action, and no shifting of onus arose merely because the factual location of the territories was in dispute.

Conclusion: The appellants failed to establish that their map was admissible or reliable, and the burden did not shift to the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the partition of Berubari Union No. 12 under the Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960 was incapable of implementation on the appellants' construction of the agreement.

Analysis: The relevant clause was construed as directing a broad half-and-half division, beginning from the north-eastern corner of Debiganj Thana, and not as requiring a geometrically exact horizontal line. The provision was intended to effect a workable territorial division, taking account of the surrounding enclaves and the overall purpose of the agreement. The Court rejected the contention that no part of Berubari Union No. 12 could go to Pakistan under the amendment.

Conclusion: The amendment was capable of implementation, and no writ could issue to restrain the division of Berubari Union No. 12.

Issue (iii): Whether the proposed transfer of the Chilahati area was constitutionally invalid, including the claim based on West Bengal territory and adverse possession.

Analysis: The Court found that the area proposed to be transferred formed part of the Chilahati allotted to Pakistan, and the accidental continued administration of that area by West Bengal did not make it part of West Bengal within the meaning of the constitutional entry relied upon. The words "as if" in the relevant constitutional and statutory context referred to territories absorbed through merger arrangements, not to land mistakenly retained in administration after partition. The plea of adverse possession was not raised in the writ petition and was not open on the record.

Conclusion: The proposed transfer of the Chilahati area was not unconstitutional, and the appellants' challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the intended territorial transfer failed in full, and the writ petition was not sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A territorial transfer law will not be restrained where the court construes the governing constitutional amendment as permitting a practical and effective division, and mistaken continued administration of land does not by itself convert territory already allotted elsewhere into part of the administering state.

---