Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9844-9846  OF   2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 23051-23053 of 2009)

Pradeep Kumar Maskara and others ……Appellants

Versus

State of West Bengal and others       …..Respondents

JUDGMENT

M.Y. EQBAL, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave are directed against the  

common    judgment    and    order    dated    20.3.2009,  

passed  by the Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta in  

W.P.L.R.T. Nos. 728 of 2002, 429 of 2002 and 430 of 2002,  

whereby the  High Court dismissed the aforementioned Writ  

Applications holding that the question as to whether Chapter  

IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act would be applicable  

1

Page 2

qua the appellants in view of the fact  that they belonged to a  

place which was in erstwhile State of Bihar and by virtue of  

the State Reorganisation Act, their lands were included in the  

State  of  West  Bengal  was  decided  against  the  appellants  

relying on the judgment  in case of  Ganga Dhar Singh &  

Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., 1997 (II) CHN 140.   

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the  

appellants, presently residents of Dalkola, sub-divisional town  

in the District  of  North Dinajpur,  West Bengal,  had certain  

ancestral lands in the said town.   On 30.3.1956, the West  

Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 came into force and the lands  

of the appellants were transferred from State of Bihar to State  

of West Bengal by virtue of the enactment of Bihar and West  

Bengal  (Transferred Territories)  Act,  1956,  which  came into  

force w.e.f. 19.10.1956.

4. On  24.09.1958  the  West  Bengal  Transferred  Territory  

(Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1958 was brought into force. The  

2

Page 3

provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act were extended  

to the transferred Territories by issuing a Notification under  

Sec  3(3)  of  the  West  Bengal  Transferred  Territories  

(Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1958. Some of the provisions of the  

West  Bengal  Reforms  Act  were  enforced  in  the  transferred  

Territory.

5. Thereafter, in the year 1971, West Bengal Land Reforms  

(Amendment)  Act  was  enacted.  Section  1(3)  empowered  the  

State Government to appoint the date of enforcement of the  

provisions.  By virtue of Section 13 of the Act, Chapter II-B for  

ceiling on holding was sought to be inserted for the first time  

in the West Bengal  Land Reforms Act,  1955, and the State  

Government  issued  Notification  no.1516-L  ref.11  February,  

1971, which reads as under:-

“In  exercise  of  the  power  conferred  by  sub-section (2)  of  Section 1 of  the West  Bengal  Land Reforms  (Amendment)  Act,  1971  (President  Act  no.3  of  1971)  the  Governor is pleased hereby to appoint the  12th day of the February as the date on  which all  the provisions of  the said Act  except those in clause (1) of section 7 and  section 13, 15 and 17 thereof shall come  

3

Page 4

into  force  in  the  whole  of  the  State  of  West Bengal.”

6. The  State  Government  issued  further  Notification  

no.1650-I, Ref/2A-58/70 dated 13.2.1971 as under:-

“In  exercise  of  the  power  conferred  by  sub-s.(2) of s.1 of the West Bengal Land  Reforms  (Amendment)  Act,  1971  (President’s  Act  no.3  of  1971),  the  Governor is pleased hereby to appoint the  15th day  of  the  February,  1971,  as  the  date on which the provisions of clause (i)  of s.7, and Ss.13, 15 and 17 of the said  Act shall come into force in the whole of  the State of West Bengal.”

7. In  the  year  1976,  following  three  vesting  proceedings  

under  Section  14-T  of  the  West  Bengal  Land  Reforms  Act,  

1955 were initiated:

-  No.252/1976 against Mahabir Prasad  Maskara, father of the appellants

- No.244/19766 against Appellant No.1  

- No. 280/1976 against Appellant No.2

8. Vide order dated 02.08.1983 and 17.8.1983, Proceedings  

No.244/1976   and  No.  280/1976  were  disposed  of  with  a  

4

Page 5

finding that  appellant  nos.1 and 2 herein were minors and  

hence,  the  lands held by them were taken into  account  as  

lands of their father Mahabir Prasad Maskara.  Proceedings  

No.252/1976,  pertaining  to  Mahabir  Prasad  Maskara,  was  

disposed  of  vide  order  dated  24.8.1983,  declaring  38.8591  

acres of agricultural lands to vest in the State.

9. Aggrieved by the same, Appellants and other co-sharers  

preferred a Writ  Petition before  the High Court  of  Calcutta,  

assailing  the  initiation  of  proceedings  under  14-T(3)  of  the  

West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955, under Chapter IIB of the  

said  Act  on  the  ground  that  the  said  Chapter  of  the  Land  

Reforms Act  is  not  applicable  to  the territories  which came  

from Bihar on transfer and where the Appellants holds land.  

Learned Single Judge of the High Court, in the case of Pradip  

Kumar  Maskara  being  C.R.  No.3465(W)  of  1984,  allowed  

quashing  of  the  vesting  proceedings  on the  ground of  non-

applicability  of  Chapter  II-B  of  the  aforesaid  Act  to  the  

Transfer Territories in the absence of required Notification.  It  

5

Page 6

has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that aforesaid  

judgment of Learned Single Judge in the case of Pradip Kumar  

Maskara was never challenged and attained finality vis-à-vis  

the State and the present appellant.

10. In C.R. No.2001(W) of 1985 preferred by two residents of  

village Mohanpur, Karandighi, District West Dinajpur, another  

learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta made the  

Rule  absolute  by  holding  that  in  the  absence  of  any  

Notification under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955,  

Chapter IIB could not be made applicable to the transferred  

territories.  Thereafter, in another case, other learned Single  

Judge  quashed  the  vesting  proceedings  following  Pradip  

Kumar Maskara judgment.

11. In the case of Ganga Dhar Singh and ors. vs. State of   

West Bengal & ors., reported in (1997) 2 CHN 140, another  

learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta, by order  

dated 9.4.1997, held that no Notification is required under the  

6

Page 7

West  Bengal  Act  for  applicability  of  its  provisions  to  the  

Transferred Territories. The High Court held that there cannot  

be any doubt whatsoever that Chapter-IIB of the West Bengal  

Land Reforms Act brought in by reason of Section 13 of West  

Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 shall  apply to  

the transferred territories also.

12. Relying upon the judgment in Gangadhar Singh’s case  

(supra), the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal  

dismissed the application of the appellants herein, who moved  

O.A. No. 3841/2001 due to inaction on part of the authorities  

to  correct  the  Record  of  Rights.  The  Tribunal  held  that  no  

Notification was required to extend Chapter-IIB of  the Land  

Reforms Act to the transferred territories.

12.  The  aforesaid  order  of  the  order  of  the  Tribunal  was  

challenged  before  the  High  Court  of  Calcutta,  which  has  

upheld the order of the Tribunal holding that the decision of  

Ganga Dhar’s case (supra) is a binding precedent and having  

7

Page 8

not been assailed, has attained finality.  Hence, the present  

appeals by special leave.

13. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the  

parties  at  length  and  perused  the  papers  placed  before  us  

including the decision rendered in Ganga Dhar’s case (supra).

14. Mr.  Raju  Ramachandran,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for the appellants, submitted that in 1976 vesting  

proceedings were initiated under Section 14-T of Chapter II-B  

of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and in August,  

1983  Case  No.252/1976  was  disposed  of  against  the  

appellants declaring 38.8591 acres of agricultural land to vest  

in  the  State,  against  which,  the  appellants  approached the  

High Court by filing a petition titled as Pradip Kumar Maskara  

vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.  Learned Single Judge of the  

High Court by order dated 8.11.1992 allowed quashing of the  

vesting proceedings on the ground that there is no notification  

under the Act.  Aforesaid order is quoted hereunder:

8

Page 9

“Since  there  is  no  notification  under  the  West  Bengal  Lands Reforms Act,  1955 as yet  extending  Chapter IIB of the same as introduced by the West  Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 to the  transferred territories, i.e. the territories transferred  from the State of Bihar to the State of West Bengal  including  the  District  of  Purnia  the  impugned  proceedings under section 14T(3) of the West Bengal  Land Reforms Act, 1955 being annexure ‘B’ to the  Writ Petition and all orders passed therein cannot be  sustained in law and are quashed and the Rule is  made  absolute  to  the  extent  as  indicated  above  without any order as to costs. The order will also cover the other two Rules.”

15. Learned senior counsel contended that this judgment vis-

à-vis  the  State  and  the  present  appellants  was  never  

challenged and hence has attained finality.   However,  when  

the appellant approached the Land Reforms Tenancy Tribunal  

for  correction in the Record,  the Tribunal  instead of  merely  

directing  the  State  to  correct  the  Record  of  Rights,  sat  in  

appeal  over  the  aforesaid  judgment  of  the  High Court.  The  

Tribunal refused to give effect to the aforesaid judgment on the  

ground that in view of a subsequent decision in  Ganga Dhar  

(supra),  the  law laid  down in  Pradip  Kumar  Maskara is  no  

longer  good  law.   Learned  counsel  drew  our  attention  to  

Explanation  to  Rule  1  of  Order  XLVII  of  the  Code  of  Civil  

9

Page 10

Procedure,  1908  and  the  law  declared  by  this  Court  by  

referring to its decision in Nand Kishore Ahirwar & Anr. vs.   

Haridas Parsedia & Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 325, and in Shanti  

Devi vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1999) 5 SCC 703.  It is  

contended on behalf of the appellants that in the writ petition  

preferred by the appellant, the High Court upheld the order  

passed by the Tribunal by adopting the same reason as that of  

the Tribunal.   

16. Mr.  Raju  Ramachandran,  learned  senior  counsel  

submitted that the judgment in Ganga Dhar has been passed  

by  a  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  without  even  

referring  to  the  earlier  three  judgments  of  the  High  Court  

rendered by Single Judges.  It has been contended on behalf of  

the appellants that in this view of the matter, the judgment in  

Ganga Dhar is clearly  per incuriam in view of the decision of  

this  Hon’ble  Court  in  State  of  Assam vs.  Ripa  Sharma,  

(2013) 3 SCC 63, wherein it has been held as under:-

10

Page 11

“7.  In  the  present  case,  the  preliminary  objection has been raised at the threshold.  In  addition,  it  is  an  inescapable  fact  that  the  judgment  rendered  in  Eastern  Coalfields  Ltd.  has been rendered in ignorance of  the earlier  judgments of the Benches of co-equal strength,  rendering the same per incuriam.  Therefore, it  cannot  be  elevated  to  the  status  of  precedent….”

17. It is further contended on behalf of the appellants that  

the Tribunal  wrongly  notes  that  Ganga Dhar judgment was  

rendered  by  a  Division  Bench  though  it  was  passed  by  a  

Single  Judge.    On  the  issue  of  notification,  it  has  been  

submitted that  after  Chapter II-B was inserted by the West  

Bengal  Reforms  (Amendment)  Act,  1971  with  effect  from  

13.2.1971, no notification was issued under Section 1(3) of the  

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 enforcing the aforesaid  

inserted  provisions  contained  in  Chapter  II-B  in  the  areas  

which were transferred from State of Bihar to the State of West  

Bengal  vide  the  West  Bengal  transferred  Territories  

(Assimilation  of  Laws),  1958.   The  notification  dated  

24.06.1967 and 26.09.1969 relied upon by the respondent-

State  cannot  support  their  contention  since  Chapter  II-B  

11

Page 12

(made effective from 13.2.1971) was, admittedly, inserted after  

these notifications were issued and, therefore, could not have  

covered the provisions of Chapter II-B.  It is lastly contended  

that  even  in  the  counter  affidavit  before  this  Court,  no  

notification has been produced by the State under Section 1(3)  

of  the  West  Bengal  Land  Reforms  Act,  1955  extending  the  

provisions of Chapter II-B to the transferred territories.

18.  Per contra, Mr. Kalyan Kr. Bandopadhyay, learned senior  

counsel  made  submissions  on  behalf  of  the  respondents  

contending that because of Section 3 of Transfer of Territories  

Act,  the  transferred  territories  were  merged  in  the  State  of  

West Bengal and became a part and parcel thereof and even  

the first schedule appended to the Constitution of India was  

amended, so no further notification under Section 1(3) of the  

West Bengal Land Reforms Act was necessary.  Further, as the  

requirement  of  the  provision  having  been complied  with  by  

reason  of  Notification  dated  26th June,  1967,  a  further  

notification under Section 1(3) was not necessary.  It has been  

12

Page 13

further contended on behalf of the respondents that by virtue  

of notification dated 26th September, 1969, certain provisions  

of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 came into force from  

1st day of October, 1969 in all the areas transferred from Bihar  

to West Bengal under the West Bengal (Transfer of Territories)  

Act, 1956.

19. Learned senior counsel appearing for the State submitted  

that the High Court correctly held in the case of Ganga Dhar  

(supra)  that  Chapter  II-B of  the West Bengal  Land Reforms  

(Amendment)  Act,  1972  shall  apply  to  the  transferred  

territories.   

20. The short question that falls for consideration is  as to  

whether the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal  

was justified in dismissing the application of  the appellants  

and refused to make correction in the record of right in terms  

of the directions of the High Court.

13

Page 14

21. As noticed above, the land in question was transferred  

from the State of Bihar to the State of West Bengal pursuant  

to  the  enactment  of  Bihar  and  West  Bengal  (Transferred  

Territories) Act, 1956 and the provisions of West Bengal Land  

Reforms  Act  were  extended  to  the  transferred  territories.  

Consequently, the land in question was shown to have been  

vested in the State and the appellant challenged the said order  

of vesting by filing a writ petition being CR No.3466 of 1984.  

The said writ petition was allowed by the Calcutta High Court  

in  terms  of  Order  dated  25.11.1994  and  the  said  order  of  

vesting  was  quashed  on  the  ground  of  non  applicability  of  

Chapter IIB of the aforesaid Act.  Similar order was passed in  

another  writ  petition  in  the  Calcutta  High  Court  in  CR  

No.2001(W) of 1985.  The said orders were not challenged by  

the State either before the Division bench of the High Court or  

before this Court and it attained finality.

22. After the aforesaid order was passed by the High Court,  

the appellants moved an application along with the copy of the  

14

Page 15

order before the Tribunal for a direction to correct the revenue  

record by entering their names.  The Tribunal dismissed the  

application on the ground that the decision of the High Court  

in Gangadhar Singh’s case (supra) is binding precedents and  

the earlier  judgment of  the High Court  is  no longer a good  

law.  For  better  appreciation,  the  order  dated  20.2.2002  is  

reproduced hereinbelow:-

“20.2.2002       Heard the learned counsel for the applicant  and the learned Govt. Representative at length.

Challenging  the  order  of  vesting  passed  under  Chapter-IIB  of  the  West  Bengal  Land  Reforms Act, the applicant filed a writ petition  being  C.r.  No.3466(W)  of  1984  on  the  ground  that  the said chapter of the Land Reforms Act is  not applicable to the territories which came from  Bihar on transfer and where the applicant holds  lands.  The said Civil Rule was disposed of by an  order dated 8.1.1992 by the High Court to the  effect that  in absence of the notification under  the Land Reforms Act extending the said chapter  IIB to  the transferred territories  the impugned  order  of  vesting  under  section  14T  (3)  is  not  sustainable  and  quashed.   The  applicant’s  grievance is that despite such order, no action  has been taken by the authority to correct the  record of rights.

The  learned  Govt.  Representatives  have  submitted that in Gangadhar Singh vs. State of  West Bengal reported in (1997) 2 CHN 140 the  Division Bench of the High Court held that no  notification is necessary to extend chapter-IIB of  the  Land  Reforms  Act  to  the  transferred  territories.  In view of this decision the decision  

15

Page 16

in C.r.No.3466 (W) of 1984 is no longer a good  law.

It is therefore, evident that the application  has  been  filed  without  any  cause  of  action,  because  the  High  Court  has  decided  that  for  extension  of  Chapter  –IIB  of  the  transferred  territories no notification under section 1(3)  of  the Act is required.

The application is dismissed. Let plain copies of this order duly counter  

signed by the principal Office of the Tribunal be  made  available  for  onward  Communication  to  Block  Land & Land Reforms  Office,  Karndighi  Circle, Dist. North Dinajpur for compliance and  information. Sd/-K.L. Mukhopadhayaya (M) Sd/- K.J. Majumdar, ……(M)”

23. The  appellants  challenged  the  aforesaid  order  of  the  

Tribunal  by  filing  a  writ  petition  before  the  Calcutta  High  

Court.  The High Court relying on the decision in Gangadhar  

Singh’s case dismissed the writ petition.

24. At  the  very  outset,  we notice  that  Gangadhar  Singh’s  

case was not decided by a Division Bench of Calcutta High  

Court  as  observed by  the  Tribunal.   In  the  year  1984,  the  

appellants  challenged the  notice  of  vesting  of  their  land by  

16

Page 17

filing  a  writ  petition  which  was  allowed  and  the  notice  of  

vesting was quashed.  On the basis of said order passed by the  

High Court, the appellants moved the Tribunal for correction  

of the revenue record.  The tribunal kept the matter pending  

for  a  long  time  and  only  in  the  year  2002  by  order  dated  

20.2.2002 dismissed the application holding that the division  

bench of the High Court in subsequent decision in Gangadhar  

Singh’s case held otherwise.

25. At the very outset, we are of the view that the tribunal  

has  no  jurisdiction  to  differ  with  the  decision given by  the  

Calcutta High Court in the writ petition filed by the appellants.  

The tribunal  further  committed grave  error  in  following  the  

decision in Gangadhar Singh’s case treating it to be a Division  

Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court when as a matter of  

fact the decision in Gangadhar Singh’s case was decided by a  

Single Judge of the High Court.  Even the judgment passed in  

the  appellant’s  writ  petition  filed  in  1984  was  neither  

considered nor distinguished.

17

Page 18

26. In  the  back  ground  of  these  facts,  in  our  considered  

opinion,  when the judgment rendered by the  Calcutta  High  

Court  in  the  case  of  the  appellants  and  the  said  decision  

having not been quashed or set aside by a larger bench of the  

High Court or by this Court, the tribunal ought not to have  

refused to follow the order of the High Court.

27. It is well settled that even if the decision on a question of  

law has been reversed or modified by subsequent decision of a  

superior court in any other case it shall not be a ground for  

review  of  such  judgment  merely  because  a  subsequent  

judgment of  the single judge has taken contrary view. That  

does not confer jurisdiction upon the tribunal to ignore the  

judgment and direction of the High Court given in the case of  

the appellants.

18

Page 19

28. In the aforesaid premises, the order passed by the land  

tribunal is erroneous in law.  The High Court also fell in error  

in  affirming  the  order  of  the  tribunal,  hence  these  orders  

cannot be sustained in law.

29. For the reason aforesaid, these appeals are allowed and  

the orders passed by the High Court and the tribunal are set  

aside.   The  tribunal  is  directed  to  follow  the  decision  of  

Calcutta High Court decided in the case of the appellants.

…………………………….J. [ M.Y. Eqbal ]  

…………………………….J. [Pinaki Chandra Ghose]

New Delhi October 17, 2014

19

Page 20

20