1955 (6) TMI 15 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Dismisses Appeal Due to Procedural Error, Land Falls under Redefined Area

Bhagat Ram Baika Versus Prabirendra Mohan Tagore And Ors.

The court dismissed the appeal without a hearing, acknowledging procedural irregularity but finding no prejudice to the petitioner as the authorities' ... - Issues Involved:1. Dismissal of appeal without a hearing.2. Applicability of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, to the petitioner's land.3. Interpretation of the definition of 'Calcutta' in the context of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, and the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951.Detailed Analysis:1. Dismissal of Appeal Without a Hearing:The petitioner contended that his appeal to the Commissioner was dismissed without a hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The court acknowledged that while the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act does not explicitly mandate a hearing, natural justice principles demand that an appellant should be given a hearing before dismissal. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in 'Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal Kotah,' which emphasized the necessity of a hearing in judicial proceedings unless explicitly excluded by statute. Despite recognizing the procedural irregularity, the court concluded that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner, as the actual order made by the authorities was correct. Therefore, the court refrained from remanding the case for rehearing.2. Applicability of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949:The court examined whether the petitioner's land fell within the scope of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949. Section 1(2) of the Act excludes 'Calcutta' as defined in the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, and certain suburbs notified under the Calcutta Suburban Police Act, 1866. The petitioner's land was not included in the definition of 'Calcutta' under the 1923 Act. However, the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923 was repealed and replaced by the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, which redefined 'Calcutta' to include the area of the former Tollygunge Municipality, where the petitioner's land is situated. Consequently, the petitioner's land became part of 'Calcutta' as per the 1951 Act, rendering the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act inapplicable to his land.3. Interpretation of the Definition of 'Calcutta':The petitioner argued that the definition of 'Calcutta' in the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act should refer to the 1923 Act, not the 1951 Act. The court rejected this argument, citing Section 10 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, which allows references to repealed and re-enacted provisions to be construed as references to the new enactment. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in 'National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick and Bros Ltd.,' which upheld the principle that references to repealed statutes should be read as references to the corresponding provisions of the new statutes. The court also noted Section 608 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, which directs that references to the 1923 Act should be construed as references to the 1951 Act, unless a different intention is evident. The court found no such contrary intention in the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act.Conclusion:The court concluded that the petitioner's land falls within the redefined 'Calcutta' under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. Thus, the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, does not apply to the petitioner's land. The court discharged the rule without any order for costs, affirming the correctness of the authorities' decision on the merits.Separate Judgment:Mallick, J. concurred with the judgment.