PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS

                        [2014] 13 S.C.R. 540


A         PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARAAND OTHERS
                                  v.
            STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
                (Civil Appeal Nos. 984446 of 2014)
B
                        OCTOBER 17, 2014
      [M. Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]
          Practice & Procedure - Duty to follow direction/
C judgment of superior Court - Land in question transferred
  from the State of Bihar to the State of West Bengal pursuant
   to the enactment of 1956 Act and the provisions of West
   Bengal Land Reforms Act were extended to the transferred
   territories - Consequently, land in question shown to have
o  been vested in the S,tate of West Bengal - Appellant
   challenged the order of vesting by filing a writ petition - Writ
  petition allowed by the High Court - Order not challenged
   and attained finality - On basis of said order of High Court,
   the appellants moved application before the Land Tribunal
E for correction of revenue record - Tribunal dismissed the
   application on the ground that the decision of High Court in
   Gangadhar Singh's case was binding precedent and the
   earlier judgment of the High Court was no longer a good law
   - Appellants challenged the order of Tribunal by filing writ
F petition - High Court relying on the decision in Gangadhar
   Singh's case dismissed the writ petition - Propriety of- Held:
   Not proper- The tribunal had no jurisdiction to differ with the
   decision given by High Court in the writ petition filed by the
   appellants - When judgment rendered by High Court in the
G case of appellants and the said decision having not been
   quashed or set aside by a larger bench of the High Court or
   by the Supreme Court, the tribunal ought not to have refused
   to follow the order of High Court - Tribunal directed to follow
   the decision of High Court decided in the case of appellants
H
                                 540
   PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA v. STATE OF WEST                    541
                  BENGAL

- West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955- s. 14-T(3), Chapter A
11-8 - Bihar and West Bengal (Transferred Territories) Act,
1956.
     Allowing the appeals, the Court
      HELD:1. The tribunal has no jurisdiction to differ     B
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              C
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. In the
back ground of these facts, when the judgment rendered       D
by the 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. [Paras 25, 26][552·E·H; 553-A]               E
      2. 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 F
 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, The tribunal is directed to follow the decision G
 of High Court decided in the case of the appellants.
 [Paras 27, 29)(553·8-C; E]
     Ganga Dhar Singh & Ors. v. State of West Bengal
     and Ors. 1997 (II) CHN 140; Ganga Dhar Singh            H
542        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A          and ors. v. State of West Bengal & ors. (1997) 2
           CHN 140; Nand Kishore Ahirwar &Anr. v. Haridas
           Parsedia & Ors. (2001) 9 SCC 325; Shanti Devi
           v. State of Haryana & Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 703; State
           ofAssam v. Ripa Sharma (2013) 3 SCC 63: 2013
B          (4) SCR 151 - referred to.

                          Case Law Reference:
           1997 (II) CHN 140     referred to          Para 11

c          (1997) 2 CHN 140      referred to          Para 11

           (2001) 9 sec 325      referred to          Para 15

           (1999) 5 sec 103       referred to         Para 15

D          2013 (4) SCR 151      referred to          Para 16

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
      No. 9844-46 of 2014.

         From the judgment and order dated 20.03.2009 in
 E WPLRT No. 728/2002, 429/2002 and 430/2002 passed by
   the High Court of Calcutta.

           Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Devashish Bharuka,
      Vaibhav N., Ranjan Mukherjee,Advs. for the Appellants.
 F        Kalyan Kr. Bandopadhyay Sr.Adv., Soumya Chakraborty,
      Saakaar Sardana (For Anip Sachthey), Advs. for the
      Respondents.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 G
           M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. 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
 H
   PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA v. STATE OF WEST                           543
            BENGAL [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

W.P.L.R.T. Nos. 728 of 2002, 429 of 2002 and 430 of 2002, A
whereby the High Court dismissed the aforementioned Writ
Applications holding that the question as to whether Chapter
llB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act would be applicable
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 B
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.
                                                                    c
      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         D
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 Territories1 Act, 1956, which came into
forcew.e.f.19.10.1956.
                                                                    E
      4. On 24.09.1958 the West Bengal Transferred Territory
(Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1958 was brought into force. The
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            F
(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 G
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 11-B for ceiling on holding was sought to be
inserted for the first time in the West Bengal Land Reforms H
544         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A Act, 1955, and the State Government issued Notification
  no.1516-L ref.11 February, 1971, which reads as under:-

           "ln exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of
           Section 1 of the West Bengal Land Reforms
B          (Amendment) Act, 1971 (PresidentAct no.3of1971) the
           Governor is pleased hereby to appoint the 121h 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 into force in
c          the whole of the State of West Bengal."
           6. The State Government issued further Notification
      no.1650-1, Ref/2A-58/70 dated 13.2.1971 as under:-
           "ln exercise of the power conferred by sub-s.(2) of s.1 of
D          the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971
           (President's Act no.3of1971 ), the Governor is pleased
           hereby to appoint the 151h day of the February, 1971, as
           the date on which the ~rovisions of clause (i) of s. 7, and
           Ss.13, 15 and 17 of the said Act shall come into force in
E          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:
F
           - No.252/1976 against Mahabir Prasad Maskara, father
              of the appellants
           - No.244/19766 against Appellant No.1
G          - 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 finding that appellant nos.1 and 2 herein were minors
H and hence, the lands held by them were taken into account as
   PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA v. STATE OF WEST                        545
            BENGAL [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

lands of their father Mahabir Prasad Maskara. Proceedings        A
N·o.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- B
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
llB of the said Act on the ground that the said Chapter of the
Land Reforms Act is not applicable to the territories which      c
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 11-B of the aforesaid Act to the D
Transfer Territories in the absence of required Notification. It
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-a-vis
the State.and the present appellant.                             E

      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    F
of any Notification under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act
1955, Chapter llB could not be made applicable to the
transferred territori~s. Thereafter, in another case, other
learned Single Judge quashed the vesting proceedings
following Pradip Kumar Maskara judgment.                         G

     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
                                                                  H
546         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A    order dated 9.4.1997, held that no Notification is required
     under the West Bengal Act for applicability of its provisions to
   - the Transferred Territories. The High Court held that there cannot
     be any doubt w_hatsoever that Chapter-JIB of the West Bengal
     Land ReformsAct brought in by reason of Section 13 of West
 B -Beng?I 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
c     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-JIB of the
      Land Reforms Act to the transferred territories. -
 D
           · 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 "not
 E    been assailed, has attained finality. Hence, the present
      appeals by special leave.

            13. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing
      forthe parties at length and perused the papers placed before
 F    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 Jl-B
 G 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, th!:! appellants approached the High
   Court by filing a petition titled as Pradip Kumar Maskara vs.
 H
    PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARAv. STATE OF WEST                        547
             BENGAL [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

State of West Bengal & Ors. Learned Single Judge of the A
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:
      "Since there is no notification under the West Bengal B
      Lands Reforms Act, 1955 as yet extending Chapter llB
      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 Biharto the State of West Bengal including the District c
      of Purnia the impugned proceedings under section
      14T(3) of the West Bengal Land ReformsAct, 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 D
      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-a-vis the State and the present appellants was never E
 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 F
·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 G
 1 of Order XLVll of the Code of Civil 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 Oevi vs. State of Haryana
                                                                   H
548         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A & 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.

B           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
c     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 ofAssam vs. Ripa Sharma, (2013)
      3 sec 63, wherein it has been held as under:-

            "7. In the present case, the preliminary objection has been
D
            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
E           per incuriam. Therefore, it cannot be elevated to the
            status of precedent. ... "

            17. It is further contended oh behalf of the appellants that
  the Tribunal wrongly notes that Ganga Dhar judgment was
F 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 11-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
G Land Reforms Act, 1955 enforcing the aforesaid inserted
  provisions contained in Chapter 11-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
H
    PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA v. STATE OF WEST                      549
             BENGAL [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

26.09.1969 relied upon by the respondent-State cannot A
support their contention since Chapter 11-B (made effective from
13.2.1971) was, admittedly, inserted after these notifications
were issued and, therefore, could not have covered the
provisions of Chapter 11-B. It is lastly contended that even in
the counter affidavit before this Court, no notification·has been B
produced by the State under Section 1(3) of the West Bengal
Land Reforms Act, 1955 extending the provisions of Chapter
11-B to the transferred territories.

       18. Per contra, Mr. Kalyan Kr. Bandopadhyay, learned c
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 D
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 E
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) F
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 11-B of the West Bengal Land G
Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 ~hall apply to the transferred
territories ..


                                                                 H
550         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A          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.
 B
         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
 c 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
 D in terms of Order dated 25.11.1994 and the said order of
    vesting was quashed on the ground of non applicability of
    Chapter llB 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
 E 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
 F of the 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
 G 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
 H           learned Govt. Representative at length.
PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA v. STATE OF WEST                       551
         BENGAL [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

    Challenging the order of vesting passed under Chapter- A
 llB 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. B
 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 llB to the transferred territories the
 impugned order of vesting under section 14T (3) is not C
 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 D
 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-
 11 B of the Land Reforms Act to the transferred territories.
 In view of this decision the decision in C.r.No.3466 (W) E
 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 -llB of the F
 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 ·G
 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.
                                                            H
552        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014) 13 S.C.R.


A         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.
 B 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
 C Court as observed by the Tribunal. In the year 1984, the
   appellants challenged the notice of vesting of their land by 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
 D 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
   othetwise.
 E
          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
 F 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
 G was neither considered nor distinguished.
            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
 H
    PRADEEP KUMAR MAS KARA v. STATE OF WEST                          553
             BENGAL [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

not been quashed or set aside by a larger bench of the High          A
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 B
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 c
appellants.

      28. In the aforesaid premises, the order passed by the
land tribunal is erroneous in law. T.he High Court also fell in
error in affirming the order of the tribunal, hence these orders
                                                                 0
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.    E



Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                              Appeals allowed.