{"id":159284,"date":"2000-09-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-09-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000"},"modified":"2015-04-22T19:43:28","modified_gmt":"2015-04-22T14:13:28","slug":"state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000","title":{"rendered":"State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Scene Screen (Pvt.) Ltd., & Anr on 28 September, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Scene Screen (Pvt.) Ltd., & Anr on 28 September, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: D.P.Mohapatra<\/div>\n
Bench: R.P.Sethi, D.P.Mohapatro<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 834  of  1981\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSCENE SCREEN (PVT.) LTD., & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t28\/09\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nR.P.Sethi, D.P.Mohapatro\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
D.P.MOHAPATRA,J.\n<\/p>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
      State of West Bengal represented by the Secretary Land
\nand  Land  Reforms  Department,\t  the  Junior  Land  Reforms
\nOfficer,   Barrackpore\tCircle,\t  P.S.Khardah,\tDistt.\t  24
\nParganas  and  the  Additional\t Collector  and\t  Additional
\nDistrict Magistrate (Land Reforms), 24 Parganas (North) have
\nfiled  this  appeal assailing the judgment of  the  Division
\nBench of the Calcutta High Court dated 7.4.1977 allowing the
\nAppeal from Original Order No.409 of 1961 filed by Sasthidas
\nMalik,\t(respondent  No.2  herein)  on\tsetting\t aside\t the
\njudgment  of  the  learned  Single   Judge  in\tCivil\tRule
\nNo.915\/59.   The Civil Rule was filed by Sasthidas Malik who
\nwill hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      The dispute raised in the case relates to the question
\nwhether\t the writ petitioner is entitled to retain the lands
\ncomprised in plot Nos.\t11 and 32 under Khatyan Nos.  21 and
\n390  respectively of Mouza Kalidah extending over an area of
\n2.3432\tacres,\tunder  the  provisions of  the\tWest  Bengal
\nEstates’  Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to  as
\n‘the  Act’).  In the records of right published in the\tyear
\n1931 the lands were recorded in the name of the petitioner’s
\nfather\tand  as\t having pucca structures  therein.   By\t two
\nindentures  of lease dated 26.11.1947 and 25.8.1952.  Prosad
\nDas  Malik, father of the petitioner, gave lease of the said
\ntwo  plots  of\tland  to   M\/s\tScene  Screen  (Pvt.)  Ltd.,
\nrespondent  No.1  herein,  (hereinafter referred to  as\t the
\nlessee), for the purpose of building a cinema house and shop
\nrooms,\tfor a term of 30 years on payment of rent  mentioned
\nin  the\t documents.   After  the death\tof  his\t father\t the
\npetitioner  had\t become the owner of the said lands.   After
\ncoming\tinto  force of the West Bengal Estates’\t Acquisition
\nAct,  1953  the\t petitioner submitted a return in  Form\t ‘B’
\nproposing  to retain the lands covered by the said leases as
\nan  intermediary under section 6 of the Act.  In the  record
\nof  rights  prepared under section 39 of the Act  the  lands
\nwere   recorded\t in  the  name\tof  respondent\tNo.1  as   a
\nnon-agricultural  tenant  under\t the petitioner.   When\t the
\npetitioner  demanded arrears of rent amounting to  Rs.4725\/-
\nfrom  the lessee it replied that as a result of operation of
\nthe  provisions\t of  the Act the petitioner  was  no  longer
\nentitled  to  receive the rent which was being paid  to\t the
\nGovernment  of\tWest Bengal.  Faced with the  situation\t the
\npetitioner  filed  the writ petition  contending  inter-alia
\nthat  the State Government has no right to collect rent from
\nthe  –\tlessee\tas  under section 6(1)(b)  of  the  Act\t the
\npetitioner  is\tentitled  to  retain the lands\tand  he\t has
\nelected\t to  do\t so  by submitting the return  in  Form\t ‘B’
\nincluding  these  lands.   Having failed to  get  favourable
\nresponse  from\tthe  officers  concerned of  the  State\t the
\npetitioner filed the writ petition seeking inter alia a writ
\nof  mandamus directing the State Government and its officers
\nnot  to recognise the lessee as a tenant under the State and
\nnot to realise rent from it.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the
\nrespondents  1\tto  3  to the writ  petition,  who  are\t the
\nappellants herein, the gist of the case pleaded was that the
\npetitioner  was\t not entitled to retain the  rent  receiving
\ninterest  in  respect  of the land leased in favour  of\t the
\nrespondent-lessee.   Even  though  the leases  were  created
\nprior  to  the\tdate  of  coming  into\tforce  of  the\tAct.
\nReference  was made to section 5(c) of the Act in support of
\nthe  contention that the lessor’s interest created in favour
\nof  the predecessor in interest of the petitioner had vested
\nin  the\t State\ton  April 14, 1955 on  the  same  terms\t and
\nconditions  as\tagreed between the lessor and the lessee  on
\nthe  date  of  vesting.\t  The learned single  Judge  in\t his
\njudgment   noticed  the\t relevant   provisions\tof  the\t Act
\nparticularly section 6(1)(b) of the Act as it stood prior to
\nthe  amendment\tof the Act by the West Bengal Act 9 of\t1961
\nwhich  was  published in the Gazette on April 24,  1961\t and
\nheld that the section 6 aims on taking away all the lands of
\nintermediary  except  such  portions thereof as are  in\t his
\nactual\tpossession within the specified limits.\t The learned
\nsingle\tJudge was of the view that it would not be right  to
\nhold  that  the land in the possession of tenants  could  be
\nretained  by  the  ex-intermediary  merely  because  of\t the
\nabsence\t of the words “khas possession” in section  6(1)(b).
\nInterpreting  section 6(1) (b) the learned Single Judge held
\nthat  an intermediary can only retain the land comprised  in
\nbuilding  or  structures owned by him or held under  him  by
\nleave  or  licence and not by a tenant.\t The learned  single
\nJudge  dismissed the writ petition on the finding that under
\nsection\t 6(1)(b)  as it stood before the amendment  as\talso
\nunder  the  altered  provision\t after\tthe  amendment,\t the
\npetitioner  was not entitled to retain the lands covered  by
\nthe structures erected by the lessee.\n<\/p>\n
      Feeling  aggrieved  by  the judgment  of\tthe  learned
\nsingle\tJudge  the  petitioner filed the  appeal  which\t was
\ndecided\t in his favour by the Judgment dated 7th April, 1977
\nwhich is under challenge in this appeal.  The Division Bench
\ntook  the view that the appellant is a tenant in respect  of
\nthe non- agricultural land holding under the proprietor or a
\ntenure holder and so he is not an agricultural tenant within
\nthe  meaning  of clause (k) of section 2 of the Act.  He  is
\nalso   not  an\t‘intermediary’\tas   defined  in  the\tAct.
\nElucidating  the  point the Division Bench observed that  as
\nthe  disputed  land is a part of the Government\t Khas  Mahal
\nland,\tit  must  have\tbeen   settled\tin  favour  of\t the
\npredecessor-in-interest\t of the appellant by the Government.
\nThat  the  relationship\t between   the\tGovernment  and\t the
\npredecessor-in-interest\t  of  the  appellant   as  per\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe Bengal Tenancy Act would be that of\t the
\nlandlord  and tenant.  Referring to the status of the lessee\n<\/p>\n
-respondent  No.4 in that appeal the Division Bench observed
\nthat  the  said\t respondent has been recorded  as  possessor
\n(‘dakhalkar’)  in  respect of the non-agricultural land\t and
\nthat  there  is\t no  dispute  that  the\t said  lessee  is  a
\nnon-agricultural  tenant.   Relying  on\t  the  C.S.   Record\n<\/p>\n
-of-Rights in which the names of the predecessor-in-interest
\nof  the\t appellant  including the name of  his\tfather\twere
\nrecorded  as  tenure  holders  and in  the  absence  of\t any
\nevidence   that\t the  disputed\tland   was  ever  used\t for
\nagricultural purposes;\ton the contrary there being positive
\nevidence  that\tthe  disputed land was being used  for\tnon-
\nagricultural purposes by the lessee since 1931, the Division
\nBench  held  that the appellant being non-agricultural\tuser
\nwas liable to pay the rent.  The Division Bench rejected the
\ncontention  raised  on behalf of the State and its  officers
\nthat  since  under the document of lease the  appellant\t was
\ngiven  a rent receiving right he is an intermediary for\t the
\npurposes of the Act.  On the said finding the Division Bench
\nset  aside  the\t judgment of the learned  single  Judge\t and
\ndirected  that\ta writ in the nature of mandamus  be  issued
\ndirecting  the\trespondents  not to realise  the  rent\tfrom
\nrespondent  No.4 (R-1 herein) who holds the land as a tenant
\nunder  the appellant and further directed issue of a writ in
\nthe  nature  of certiorari quashing the orders of the  State
\nGovernment  or its officers directing to treat the said land
\nas vested land and to realise rent from respondent No.4 (R-1
\nherein) in respect thereof.\n<\/p>\n
      Shri_Jaideep  Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the
\nappellants  strenuously urged that the Division Bench of the
\nHigh  Court committed error in holding that the interest  of
\nthe  lessor-respondent No.2 in the land in question did\t not
\nvest in the State under the West Bengal Estates’ Acquisition
\nAct,  1953.   According to the counsel, the  Division  Bench
\nhaving\tfound  that  respondent\t  No.1\twas  undisputedly  a
\nnon-agricultural   tenant  holding  the\t  land\t under\t the
\nrespondent  No.2,  should have held that all such  interests
\nbetween\t the possessor of the land and the State  Government
\nwere  intermediary  interests which stood vested  under\t the
\nsaid  Act.   The learned counsel also submitted\t that  since
\nrespondent  No.2  himself  submitted a return  in  Form\t ‘B’
\nexpressing  the\t intention  to retain the lands\t in  dispute
\nthereby\t acknowledging\this status as an  intermediary,\t the
\nDivision Bench was not right in holding to the contrary.\n<\/p>\n
      Shri Manoj Chatterjee learned counsel for Respondent-1
\nalso  adopted  the  contention\traised\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned  counsel\tappearing for respondent  No.2,\t the
\nlessor\tsupported  the judgment of the Division Bench  under
\nchallenge  contending that in the facts and circumstances of
\nthe  case  respondent  No.2  could  not be  said  to  be  an
\n‘intermediary’\tunder  the Act, and therefore, the  Division
\nBench  rightly\theld that his interest in the lands did\t not
\nvest in the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
      Since  the notification under section 4 of the Act was
\nissued\ton  1.4.1955  and the vesting  of  the\tintermediary
\nestate\ttherein\t took  effect from 14.4.1955  the  statutory
\nprovisions  of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment in
\n1961 are relevant for the purpose of deciding this case.\n<\/p>\n
      In  Section  2  of  the\tAct  are  incorporated\t the
\ndefinitions  of the different terms used in the Act.   Under
\nclause\t(f) of the said section it is provided that “estate”
\nor  “tenure” includes part of an estate or part of a tenure.
\nUnder  clause  (h) “incumbrance” in relation to estates\t and
\nrights of intermediaries therein does not include the rights
\nof  a raiyat or of an under-raiyat or of a  non-agricultural
\ntenant.\t  In  clause (I) “intermediary” means a\t proprietor,
\ntenure-holder, under-tenure-holder or any other intermediary
\nabove\ta   raiyat   or\t   a   non-   agricultural   tenant.
\nNon-agricultural  land is defined in clause (j) to mean land
\nother\t than\tagricultural\tland.\t  In   clause\t (k)
\n‘non-agricultural   tenant’   means   a\t  tenant   of\tnon-
\nagricultural   land   who  holds   under  a  proprietor,   a
\ntenure-holder  or an under- tenure holder.  In section\t2(p)
\nit  is\tlaid down that the expressions used in this Act\t and
\nnot otherwise defined have in relation to the areas to which
\nthe  Bengal  Tenancy Act, 1885 (VIII of 1885), applies,\t the
\nsame  meaning as in that Act and in relation to other  areas
\nmeaning\t as similar thereto as the existing law relating  to
\nland tenures applying to such areas, permits.\n<\/p>\n
      In  Section  3 it is provided that the  provisions  of
\nthis  Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to\t the
\ncontrary  contained  in\t any other law or  in  any  contract
\nexpress\t or implied or in any instrument and notwithstanding
\nany usage or custom to the contrary.\n<\/p>\n
      Section  4 in which provision is made regarding  issue
\nof notification vesting estates and rights of intermediaries
\nlays  down  in sub-section(1) that the State Government\t may
\nfrom  time to time by notification declare that with  effect
\nfrom the date mentioned in the notification, all estates and
\nthe  rights  of\t every\tintermediary  in  each\tsuch  estate
\nsituated  in any district or part of a district specified in
\nthe  notification,  shall  vest in the State free  from\t all
\nincumbrances.\n<\/p>\n
      In  section  5  the effects of a\tnotification  issued
\nunder  section\t4 are enumerated.  The relevant portions  of
\nthe same are quoted hereunder :\t “5.  Effect of notification\n<\/p>\n
–  Upon the due publication of a notification under  section
\n4, on and from the date of vesting –\n<\/p>\n
      (a)  the\testates and the rights of intermediaries  in
\nthe estates, to which the declaration applies, shall vest in
\nthe  State  free from all incumbrances;\t in  particular\t and
\nwithout\t prejudice  to the generality of the  provisions  of
\nthis  clause, every one of the following rights which may be
\nowned by an intermediary shall vest in the State, namely :-\n<\/p>\n
      xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx<\/p>\n
      (c)  until  the  provisions of Chapter  VI  are  given
\neffect\tto, every raiyat or non-agricultural tenant, holding
\nany land under an intermediary, shall hold the same directly
\nunder  the State, as if the State had been the intermediary,
\nand  on the same terms and conditions as immediately  before
\nthe date of vesting :\n<\/p>\n
      (d)  every  raiyat or non-agricultural tenant  holding
\nunder an intermediary shall be bound to pay to the State his
\nrent  and other dues in respect of his land, accruing on and
\nfrom  the  date\t of  vesting,  and  every  payment  made  in
\ncontravention  of  this\t clause\t shall be  void\t and  of  no
\neffect.”\n<\/p>\n
      In  Section  6  the   provisions\tregarding  right  of
\nintermediary  to  retain certain lands are enumerated.\t The
\nrelevant  provisions are quoted hereinbelow:  “6.  Right  of
\nintermediary to retain certain lands –\n<\/p>\n
      (1)  Notwithstanding anything contained in sections  4
\nand  5, an intermediary shall, except in the case  mentioned
\nin  the proviso to sub-section (2) but subject to the  other
\nprovisions  of that sub-section, be entitled to retain\twith
\neffect from the date of vesting –\n<\/p>\n
      (a) land comprised in homesteads;<\/p>\n
      xxxxx xxx<\/p>\n
      (b) land comprised in or appertaining to buildings and
\nstructures, whether erected by the intermediary or not;\n<\/p>\n
      (c)  non-agricultural land in his khas possession, not
\nexceeding  fifteen  acres  in area, and excluding  any\tland
\nretained under clause (a) –\n<\/p>\n
      Provided\tthat the total area, of land retained by  an
\nintermediary  under  clauses  (a) and (c) shall\t not  exceed
\ntwenty acres, as may be chosen by him;\n<\/p>\n
      Provided\tfurther\t that  if the land  retained  by  an
\nintermediary  under  clause (c) or any part thereof  is\t not
\nutilised  for  a period of five consecutive years  from\t the
\ndate  of  vesting, for a gainful or productive purpose,\t the
\nland  or  the  part  thereof may be  resumed  by  the  State
\nGovernment  subject to payment of compensation determined in
\naccordance  with the principles laid down in sections 23 and
\n24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 I of 1894);\n<\/p>\n
      (d)  agricultural\t land  in his khas  possession,\t not
\nexceeding  twenty  five acres in area, as may be  chosen  by
\nhim:\n<\/p>\n
      Provided\tthat  if he does not cultivate such land  or
\nany part thereof for a period of four consecutive years from
\nthe  date of vesting, the State Government shall be entitled
\nto  resume  such land or part thereof upon payment  of\tsuch
\ncompensation  as  may be determined in accordance  with\t the
\nprinciples  laid  down\tin sections 23 and 24  of  the\tLand
\nAcquisition Act, 1894;\n<\/p>\n
      xxxxx xxxxxx ”\n<\/p>\n
      (2)   An\tintermediary  who  is  entitled\t to   retain
\npossession of any land under sub-section (1) shall be deemed
\nto  hold such land directly under the State from the date of
\nvesting as a tenant, subject to such terms and conditions as
\nmay be prescribed and subject to payment of such rent as may
\nbe  determined\tunder  the  provisions of this\tAct  and  as
\nentered\t in  the  record-of-rights finally  published  under
\nChapter\t V  except  that no rent shall be payable  for\tland
\nreferred to in clause (h) or (i):\n<\/p>\n
      Provided\tthat  if  any  tank   fishery  or  any\tland
\ncomprised  in  a  tea-garden,\torchard,  mill,\t factory  or
\nworkshop  was  held immediately before the date\t of  vesting
\nunder a lease, such lease shall be deemed to have been given
\nby  the State Government on the same terms and conditions as
\nimmediately before such date.\n<\/p>\n
      (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
      Section  10  which provides for the Collector to\ttake
\ncharge of estates and rights of intermediaries vested in the
\nState provides that upon the publication of any notification
\nunder  section 4, the Collector shall take charge of estates
\nand  interests\tof  intermediaries which vest in  the  State
\nunder section 5.\n<\/p>\n
      From  the statutory provisions referred to above it is
\nfairly\tclear that upon publication of a notification  under
\nsection\t 4  estates and the rights of intermediaries in\t the
\nestates\t to which the declaration applies are vested in\t the
\nState  free  from  all\tencumbrances.\tSection\t 6  vests  a
\nstatutory  right in the intermediary to retain certain lands
\nas  enumerated\tin the section.\t Under sub- section  (1)  of
\nsection\t 6  an intermediary is entitled to retain  the\tland
\ncomprised  in  or  appertaining to building  and  structures
\nowned  by  the\tintermediary or by any person, not  being  a
\ntenant,\t holding under him by leave or licence.\t Clause\t (c)
\nof  sub-section\t (1) which refers to non- agricultural\tland
\nprovides   that\t such  land  in\t  khas\tpossession  of\t the
\nintermediary including land held under him by any person not
\nbeing a tenant by leave or licence not exceeding 15 acres in
\narea  and excluding any land retained under clause (a)\ti.e.
\nland  comprised in homestead.  The different clauses (a)  to\n<\/p>\n
(j) in sub-section (1) of section 6 enumerated the different
\ntypes  of  land which an intermediary is entitled to  retain
\nafter vesting, each clause refers to a distinct and separate
\ncategory  of land which he is entitled to retain.   However,
\nthe  ceiling  on the extent of land under the  broad  heads,
\nagricultural land non-agricultural land and forests are also
\nprovided in the section.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the present case, as noted above, respondent\tNo.2
\nfiled  a return in Form ‘B’ stating therein that he intended
\nto  retain the land in dispute with him after vesting.\tSuch
\na return could only be filed by an intermediary.  Respondent
\nNo.2  by submitting the return accepted the position that he
\nwas  an\t intermediary coming within the purview of the\tAct.
\nTherefore the question to be considered is whether the claim
\nfor  retaining the land under the provision of section\t6(1)\n<\/p>\n
(b)  is\t acceptable.  For deciding that question it was\t not
\nnecessary  for the Division Bench to embark upon the inquiry
\nwhether\t the  respondent No.2 was a non-agricultural  tenant
\nand  on that basis consider the further question whether his
\ninterest  in  the  land at all vested under  the  Act.\t The
\nrespondent  having himself accepted the position that he was
\nan  intermediary  the  High Court in the  writ\tjurisdiction
\nshould\tnot have embarked upon an inquiry which was  clearly
\nbeyond\tthe  scope  of the proceeding.\t Therefore,  in\t our
\nconsidered  view,  the Division Bench of the High Court\t was
\nnot  right  in taking up the question  whether\tKrishanamany
\nfrom  whom father of the respondent No.2 purchased the\tland
\nwas  a tenure holder and whether the interest of his  father
\nand  after him of respondent no.2 was also that of a  tenure
\nholder.\t In that connection certain provisions of the Bengal
\nTenancy\t Act, 1885 and decisions of Calcutta High Court\t and
\nthe  Privy  Council have been referred to.  In view  of\t the
\nmatter we have taken we do not feel called upon to determine
\nthe  question of correctness of the findings in that  regard
\non  merits.  At the cost of repetition we may reiterate that
\nthe  entire discussion on that question was unnecessary\t for
\ndecision of the case.\n<\/p>\n
      However,\tthat  is  not the end of the  problem.\t The
\nquestion  that\tremains\t to  be considered  is\twhether\t the
\nDivision  Bench\t was right in setting aside the judgment  of
\nthe  learned  single  Judge  holding  inter  alia  that\t the
\npetitioner respondent No.2 herein was not entitled to retain
\nthe land in dispute because he was not in khas possession of
\nthe  same.   In our considered view the Division  Bench\t was
\nright  in  setting aside the judgment of the learned  single
\nJudge.\t Section 6(1)(b) does not lay down that intermediary
\nshould\tbe  in khas possession of the land comprised  in  or
\nappertaining  to buildings or structures, whether erected by
\nhim or not.  On a close look at the section 6 it is manifest
\nthat  wherever\tthe  legislature intended to  lay  down\t the
\nrequirement  of\t “khas possession” as a condition  precedent
\nfor  the claim of right of retention it expressly stated so.
\nIn this connection the provisions of section 6(1)(c) and (d)
\nmay  be\t seen.\tSection 6(1) (b) clearly  and  unambiguously
\nlays  down that the intermediary shall be entitled to retain
\nthe  land  comprised  in  or appertaining  to  buildings  or
\nstructures  whether erected by the intermediary or not.\t  It
\nis  a well accepted principle of interpretation of statutory
\nprovisions  that  if  the plain language of the\t section  is
\nclear  or unambiguous it is not open to a Court to interpret
\nit  giving  a meaning different from the  plain\t grammatical
\nmeaning of the provision.  The learned single Judge, in view
\nof  the plain and unambiguous language of the provisions  of
\nthe  Act, was in error in introducing the condition of\tkhas
\npossession  in section 6(1)(b) even though the section\tmade
\nno  such provision.  Equally incorrect was the reason by the
\nlearned\t single\t Judge\tthat  if  the  requirement  of\tkhas
\npossession by the intermediary is not read into that section
\nit   will  result  in\tdiscrimination\t between   different
\ncategories  of lands which the intermediary may be  entitled
\nto  retain.   Each  clause  of section 6  (1)  refers  to  a
\nseparate category of land.  The reason for and the wisdom of
\nthe  legislature in insisting on khas possession in  respect
\nof  certain categories of land while not insisting upon\t the
\nsame  in others, cannot be questioned.\tWe are therefore  of
\nthe  view that the Division Bench of the High Court  rightly
\nset  aside  the\t judgment of the learned single\t Judge.\t  In
\nconclusion  while  not\tagreeing with the reasoning  in\t the
\njudgment  of  the Division Bench under challenge we  endorse
\nits  decision that the respondent No.2 is entitled to retain
\nthe  land which was leased in favour of the respondent\tNo.1
\nfor  construction  of  the cinema  hall.   Accordingly,\t the
\nappeal\tis  dismissed, but in the circumstances of the\tcase
\nwithout any order for costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Scene Screen (Pvt.) Ltd., & Anr on 28 September, 2000 Author: D.P.Mohapatra Bench: R.P.Sethi, D.P.Mohapatro CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 834 of 1981 PETITIONER: STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: SCENE SCREEN (PVT.) LTD., & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/09\/2000 BENCH: R.P.Sethi, D.P.Mohapatro […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-159284","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of West Bengal & Ors vs Scene Screen (Pvt.) Ltd., & Anr on 28 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Scene Screen (Pvt.) Ltd., & Anr on 28 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-22T14:13:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Scene Screen (Pvt.) Ltd., & Anr on 28 September, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-22T14:13:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3520,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000\",\"name\":\"State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Scene Screen (Pvt.) Ltd., & Anr on 28 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-22T14:13:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Scene Screen (Pvt.) Ltd., & Anr on 28 September, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Scene Screen (Pvt.) Ltd., & Anr on 28 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Scene Screen (Pvt.) Ltd., & Anr on 28 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-22T14:13:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Scene Screen (Pvt.) Ltd., & Anr on 28 September, 2000","datePublished":"2000-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-22T14:13:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000"},"wordCount":3520,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000","name":"State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Scene Screen (Pvt.) Ltd., & Anr on 28 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-22T14:13:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-ors-vs-scene-screen-pvt-ltd-anr-on-28-september-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Scene Screen (Pvt.) Ltd., & Anr on 28 September, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159284","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=159284"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159284\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159284"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159284"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159284"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}