2007 (5) TMI 663 - HC - Indian Laws

Tribunal Lacks Authority to Nullify Civil Court Decrees; State Actions Post-Decree Must Be Revoked.

Niranjan Chatterjee and Ors. Versus State of West Bengal and Ors.

The HC ruled that the Tribunal cannot declare a Civil Court decree as a nullity. It emphasized that the State must respect a Civil Court decree unless it ... Constitution Validity of Order Passed by HC - Decree for declaration of the title and permanent injunction constituted under West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act - Violation of the provisions contained in Section 57B(2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act - Application for grant of special leave - provision of compensation for vesting in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act - HELD THAT:- We have indicated that the Tribunal constituted under the provision of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, is not vested with any authority to declare that a decree passed by a Civil Court is without jurisdiction and, therefore, in the case before us, the Tribunal below acted without jurisdiction in approving the contention of the State-respondent that it could ignore the decree passed by the Civil Court and maintain the record-of-rights which is at variance with the decree it has suffered. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and directed the B.L. & L.R.O concerned to correct the record-of-rights strictly in accordance with the decree passed in favour of the writ petitioner/his predecessor. The record must be corrected within one month from the date of communication of this order. The effect of the order of stay in a pending appeal before the Apex Court does not amount to 'any declaration of law' but is only binding upon the parties to the said proceedings and at the same time, such interim order does not destroy the binding effect of the judgment of the High Court as a precedent because while granting the interim order, the Apex Court had no occasion to lay down any proposition of law inconsistent with the one declared by the High Court which is impugned. We, therefore, find substance in the contention of the writ petitioner that a Division Bench of this Court having declared the provision contained in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act regarding vesting without making any lawful provision for compensation for such vesting in the Act as ultra vires the Constitution of India, the State cannot be permitted to proceed with the said provision of vesting against the petitioner so long adequate provision is not made in the statute for compensation. We, thus, respectfully follow the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Paschim Banga Rajya Bhumijibi Sangha, which is still binding upon us as a valid precedent and consequently, set aside the order passed by the Tribunal on the ground that without making lawful provision of compensation for vesting in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, the State cannot go on with the process of vesting against the writ petitioner. The order impugned herein as well as the proceedings of vesting are set aside; the writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. This order, however, will not stand in the way of the State in continuing with the process of vesting if adequate lawful provision is incorporated in the Act for compensation for the vested land. The writ application, thus, succeeds. Issues Involved:1. Whether the Tribunal can declare a Civil Court decree as a nullity.2. Whether the State can continue with the process of vesting under Section 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act despite a Division Bench decision declaring relevant provisions ultra vires.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the Tribunal can declare a Civil Court decree as a nullity:The Tribunal dismissed the writ petitioners' application, stating that the B.L. & L.R.O was not obligated to honor a Civil Court decree declaring the title of the writ petitioners' predecessor and granting a permanent injunction against the State. The Tribunal opined that the proceedings under Section 14T(3) of the Act should continue irrespective of the Civil Court's decree.The High Court clarified that an entry in a record-of-rights does not create or extinguish title but has a presumption of correctness, which is rebuttable. When a Civil Court declares title and restrains the State from disturbing possession, the presumption from the record-of-rights is rebutted. The State, having accepted the Civil Court's decree, cannot ignore it without challenging it appropriately. Therefore, the Tribunal under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act cannot declare such a decree as a nullity.The High Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, emphasizing that even void acts require formal invalidation through proper legal proceedings. The Court further quoted Prof. Wade, stating that a void order remains effective until quashed by the right remedy. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in approving the State's contention to ignore the Civil Court's decree.Consequently, if the State has inducted any person into the property post-decree, it must revoke such patta and restore possession to the writ petitioner. The B.L. & L.R.O was directed to correct the record-of-rights in accordance with the decree within one month of the order's communication.2. Whether the State can continue with the process of vesting under Section 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act despite a Division Bench decision declaring relevant provisions ultra vires:The High Court addressed whether the State could proceed with vesting under Section 14T despite the Division Bench's decision in Paschim Banga Rajya Bhumijibi Sangha v. State of West Bengal, which declared certain provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act ultra vires Article 300A of the Constitution due to inadequate compensation principles.The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had stayed the Division Bench's order pending appeal, maintaining status quo regarding possession. However, the High Court emphasized that an interim stay does not nullify the judgment's precedent value. The Supreme Court's interim orders indicated that the State could not proceed with vesting or create third-party interests during the appeal's pendency.The High Court cited the Supreme Court's observations in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Dilip Prahlad Namade, clarifying that interim orders do not establish binding precedents or alter the legal status of the impugned judgment. Similarly, in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, the Supreme Court distinguished between staying an order's operation and quashing it, stating that a stayed order continues to exist in law.The High Court concluded that the Division Bench's declaration of the vesting provisions as ultra vires remains a valid precedent. Therefore, the State cannot proceed with vesting against the writ petitioner without lawful compensation provisions in the Act. The Tribunal's order and the vesting proceedings were set aside, allowing the writ application to the extent indicated.The High Court allowed the writ application, setting aside the Tribunal's order and the vesting proceedings, while permitting the State to continue vesting if lawful compensation provisions are incorporated in the Act. No costs were awarded, and urgent certified copies of the order were to be provided within a week of the Court's reopening.