{"id":5733,"date":"1993-05-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-05-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993"},"modified":"2015-07-12T14:16:55","modified_gmt":"2015-07-12T08:46:55","slug":"state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993","title":{"rendered":"State Of West Bengal And Ors vs Suburban Agriculture Dairy & … on 3 May, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of West Bengal And Ors vs Suburban Agriculture Dairy & … on 3 May, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 2103, \t\t 1993 SCR (3) 481<\/div>\n
Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n
Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSUBURBAN AGRICULTURE DAIRY & FISHERIES PVT.  LTD.  ANDANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/05\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nTHOMMEN, T.K. (J)\nRAMASWAMI, V. (J) II\n\nCITATION:\n 1993 AIR 2103\t\t  1993 SCR  (3) 481\n 1993 SCC  Supl.  (4) 674 JT 1993 (3)\t433\n 1993 SCALE  (2)749\n\n\nACT:\n%\nWest Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953:\nSections  4(1).\t (3).  5 (1). 6. 10.  44--Vesting  of  lands\nincluding  fisheries  of  intermediary-\t Effect-  Exemption-\nAcceptance of lands of intermediary by authorities  pursuant\nto   Form   'B'\t declaration-Retention\tof   possession\t  by\nintermediary-Dispossession when-Supreme Court's direction.\nWest  Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953-Section  44-Record\nof Rights-Revision in appeal-Legality of.\nWest  Bengal  Acquisition  Act,\t 1953-Sections\t2(h),  6,44-\n\"Incumbrance \"Revised\", \"Tank fisheries\"-Construction.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nRespondent  Company  filed a writ application  in  the\tHigh\nCourt  to refrain the appellants from giving effect  to\t the\nvesting\t of the lands in question and to take possession  of\ntank fisheries lying therein.\nThe  Single Judge directed an action under section 10(2)  of\nthe  West  Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 and  to\ttake\npossession   of\t the  lands  pursuant  thereto\t giving\t  an\nopportunity to the respondents.\nThe  Division  Bench on appeal held that  appellants  should\ntake  action  under the West Bengal Land Reforms  Act,\t1955\nwithin a period of two months of its judgment, failing which\nthe respondents would he at liberty to deal with and dispose\nof  the lands and until then the appellants were  restrained\nto take possession of the lands.\nThe  Single  Judge  and the Division Bench  found  that\t the\nRevenue Officer initiated proceedings to revise the old Jama\nof  lands as he found from record of rights that lands\twere\nclassified  as\t'Beel' (marshy land) and the appeal  of\t the\nrespondent  under  Section  44(3) of  the  Act\twas  allowed\nholding\t that the lands being 'tank fisheries' old Jama\t was\nto be maintained.\n481\n482\t\t    `\nThe  present appeal by special leave was filed\tagainst\t the\njudgment of the Division Bench of the High Court  contending\nthat  by  operation of sections 4 and 5 of the\tWest  Bengal\nEstate Acquisition Act, fisheries being one of the interests\nthat  stood extinguished and vested in the State Govt.\tfree\nof   all  incumbrances\twith  effect  from   1.6.1956,\t the\nrespondents  lost  right, title and interest  therein;\tthat\nsince  the respondent failed to make an application in\tform\n'B'  within the specified time expressing his  intention  to\nretain the lands, the entire lands including tank  fisheries\nstood  vested in the State; that as per the entries  in\t the\nrecord of rights the lands were only Beel (Marshy  lands)and\nnot tank fisheries and, therefore, even the exercise of\t the\noption\tto retain possession was not available;\t that  since\nthe  respondent raised a dispute, the Single  Judge  rightly\ndirected  an enquiry under section 10(2) and to take  action\npursuant  to-  its  result under  section  10(1);  that\t the\nDivision Bench committed manifest error in treating that the\ndecision  of  the Tribunal under section 44(3)\trelating  to\njama to be final and the lands to be tank fisheries and that\nthe  respondent was entitled to retain khas possession\twith\nall  right, tide and interest therein as an owner; and\tthat\nthe  direction given to initiate the action under  the\tWest\nBengal\tLand Reforms Act, 1955 within the  specified  period\nand  on failure thereto liberty given to the  respondent  to\nalienate the lands was beyond the relief sought in the\twrit\npetition.\nThe respondents submitted that they purchased the  leasehold\nrights in 1937 from the earliest purchaser of the lands\t who\npurchased the same from the original Zamindar and since then\nthe respondents were using the lands as tank fisheries; that\nwhen notification under section 4 was issued, the lands were\nbeing  used as tank fisheries; that despite its vesting,  by\noperation  of  section\t6(2), the respondent  had  right  to\nretain\t possession  as\t an  owner;  and  the\taction\t for\ndispossession  under  section 10(1) was\t illegal;  that\t the\nliability of dispossession of the respondent from the  lands\nwould arise only if the possession was found to be unlawful;\nand that the Division Bench, therefore, rightly directed  to\ninitiate proceedings under the West Bengal Land Reforms\t Act\nand to take action thereunder.\nAllowing the appeal, this Court,\nHELD:1.1. By operation of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 5 the  estate\nand all the rights of intermediaries including fisheries  in\nthe  estate  shall  stand determined and  ceased  and  stood\nvested in the State free from all incumbrances. (488-G)\n483\n1.2.\"Incumbrance\"  defined under Sec. 2(h)of the  Act  means\n'in  relation  to  estates  and\t rights\t of   intermediaries\ntherein,  does not include the rights of a raiyat or  of  an\nunder-raiyat  or  of a non-agricultural tenant,\t but  shall,\nexcept\tin  the case of land allowed to be  retained  by  an\nintermediary  under  the provisions of sec. 6,\tinclude\t all\nrights\tor  interests  of  whatever  nature,  belonging\t  to\nintermediaries or other persons, which relates to lands com-\nprised\tin estates or to the produce there  of.\t  Therefore,\ntide  to,  rights  or  interests  in  lands  which   include\nfisheries  held by an intermediary shall stand\textinguished\nand  ceased  and  stood\t vested in the\tstate  free  of\t all\nincumbrances. (488-H, 489-A)\n1.3.The exceptions engrafted in the incumbrance and exempted\nfrom  the operation of Sections 4 and 5 are only the  rights\nof  a raiyat or of an underraiyat or of\t a  non-agricultural\ntenant\tand the right of retention of possession allowed  to\nan  intermediary under Sec. 6 of the Act All  other  rights,\ninterest  of  whatever\tnature\tor  tide  belonging  to\t the\nintermediaries\tor  other persons who hold the\tlands  under\nlease  from  intermediary should  also\tstood  extinguished.\n(489-C)\n1.4.All\t grants\t and confirmation of title, to\testates\t and\nrights therein, to which the declaration of vesting  applies\nand which were made in favour of intermediaries shall  stand\ndetermined  and ceased by operation of Sec. 5(1) (b) of\t the\nAct. (489-D)\n1.5.The respondents being purchasers of lease hold  interest\nin tank fisheries? it also stood extinguished.\n1.6.The\t pre-existing right, tide and interest in the  lands\nsituated in an estate stood extinguished and ceased to\thave\neffect on and from notified date i.e. June 1, 1956 and stood\nvested\tin the State free from all incumbrances.   The\tnon-\nobstanti clause under Sec. 6 excluded from the operation  of\nsecs.  4  and 5 only of the interest of\t the  respondent  to\nretain\tphysical possession of the lands covered by Sec.  6,\nsubject to sec. 6(2).  The intermediary by operation of Sec.\n10(2) shall be required to submit in form 'B' within 60 days\nfrom  the  date of issuing notice under Sec.  10(1)  of\t his\nintention  to retain possession of the tank  fisheries.\t  On\nsuch   submission  of  Form  'B',  the\t Collector   without\ndispossessing  him\/it  shall be entitled to  prescribe\tsuch\nterms and conditions to which the intermediary or the leasee\nshall be bound and hold the tank fishery and shall remain in\npossession, using the tank fisheries for pisciculture or for\nfishing\t and  subject  to payment of such  rent\t as  may  be\ndetermined under the Act and\n484\nfinally entered in the Records of Rights. (491-E-F)\n1.7. The   lands  once\tretained  under\t Sec.  6.   by\t the\nintermediary  and  accepted by the authorities\tpursuant  to\nform 'B' declaration, the intermediary is entitled to retain\npossession and is not liable to dispossession so long as  he\ncomplies with the terms and conditions, if any, imposed\t and\nthe rent imposed is being paid. (492-E)\n1.8. The avowed object of Act is to divest the\tpre-existing\nright,\ttide and interest of the intermediary in  the  lands\nsituated in an estate in a district or part of the  district\nand  shall stand divested from the Zamindar or\tintermediary\nexcept\tof  a  raiyat or  under-raiyat\tor  non-agricultural\ntenant.\t   Notwithstanding  such  divestment   thereof\t the\nintermediary   has  been  empowered  to\t hold\tand   retain\npossession directly under the State and hold it as a tenant,\nsubject to such terms and conditions and subject to  payment\nof rent as may be determined under the Act.  Therefore,\t the\nentitlement  to\t retain\t possession of\tthe  land  i.e\ttank\nfisheries  in this case is not absolute but hedged with\t the\nconditions  precedent of expressing his intention to  retain\npossession  by filing form 'B'within 60 days and abiding  to\ncomply with such terms and conditions as may be imposed\t and\nalso payment of rent. (492-GH, 443-A)\n1.9. By operation of the explanation to Sec. 6(1) (e)  \"tank\nfisheries\" not only it must be a tank fishery at the date of\nvesting,   but\tit  must  also\tcontinue  to  be  used\t for\npisciculture  or for fishing.  The emphasis on 'being  used'\nobviously is that the tank fisheries should be continued  to\nbe used for public purpose, namely the fish seedling or fish\nmust be made available for public consumption. (493-B)\n1.10.\t  The  intermediary shall hold the tank\t fishery  on\nthe date of vesting as tank fishery but continue to hold and\nuse  the  same\tthereafter for pisciculture  or\t fishing  as\nexplained  in explanation 6(1) (e) of the  Act.\t  Subsequent\nconversion  of the land as tank fisheries is  not  material.\n(493-D)\nState of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal & Anr.,<\/a> [1988] Supp. 2SCR 391\nand  Sasanka Sekhar Maity & Ors. v Union of India, [1980]  3\nSCR 1209, cited.\nSaroj  Kumar Bose v Kanailal Mondal & Ors., [1985]2 SCR\t 393\nand State of West Bengal v Atul Krishna Shaw & Anr.,  [1990]\nSupp. 1 SCR 901, explained.\n485\n1.11.  The  word  'revised' under sub-sec. (1)\tof  Sec.  44\nindicates  that\t the State Govt. or its\t officers  shall  be\nentitled  to revise from time to time the Record  of  Rights\nand to make necessary entries or corrections in the relevant\ncolumns of Record of Rights in its settlement operations  or\nas  per exigency envisaged under the Act and the rules\tmade\ntherein.   The order under Sec. 44(3) becomes final so\tlong\nas  there  is  no revision effected.  The  question  of\t res\njudicata,  therefore,  does  not  arise\t and  the   previous\nappellate order does not preclude the authorities to  revise\nthe Record of Rights. (492-B)\n1.12.\t  The Division Bench of the High Court is not  right\nin  its\t conclusion that the order passed by  the  appellate\nauthority  under  Sec. 44 (3) is final and  the\t authorities\nhave no jurisdiction to revise the Record of Rights. (492-C)\n1.13.\t  Sub-section(2) of Sec. 6 expressly postulates that\nif  he holds the tank fisheries should be for continued\t for\nuse as tank fisheries and it would be subject to such  terms\nand  conditions\t and subject to payment of rent\t as  may  be\nfixed.\tThe holding of the land is as a tenant, the emphasis\nis that his possession is without any interest in the  land.\nUnder  T.P  Act\t a tenant has lease  hold  interest  in\t the\nland.But in Sec.6(2) as a tenant for the purpose of  payment\nof  the rent and retention of possession and appears  to  he\nnothing more.  As regards tank fishery is concerned,  though\nexemption  has been granted, it is subject to the  condition\nof continued user for pisciculture or fishing. (495-E)\n1.14.\t  From\tthe scheme of the Act it would\tappear\tthat\nthe intermediary or the lessee gets no absolute right in the\ntank fisheries which were already divested but to remain  in\nkhas  possession and to enjoy the usufruct thereof i.e.\t for\npisciculture  or  fishing without any interest\tor  sub-soil\nrights and subject to such terms and conditions and  subject\nto  payment of rent as prescribed under the Act, but not  as\nowner  thereof.\t The direction, therefore,by the High  Court\nthat the respondents are entitled to dispose of the land  is\ncontrary  to  and in negation of the scheme of the  Act\t and\nRules.\tTherefore, it is manifestly illegal. (495-G)\n1.15.\t  The  appellant  is  free to issue  notice  to\t the\nrespondent  under  Sec.\t 10 (2) of the Act  and\t conduct  an\nenquiry\t into  and rind: -- (1) on the date of\tthe  vesting\nwhether\t the  lands  were being\t used  for  pisciculture  or\nfishing i.e. tank fisheries; (2) whether the respondent\t had\nsubmitted form `B' within the prescribed time exercising the\noption\n486\nto  retain  possession\tof the lands  in  question  as\ttank\nfisheries;  and (3) whether the respondent is continuing  to\nuse  the  lands in question as tank  fisheries.\t  Reasonable\nopportunities  shall  be given to the respondents  to  prove\nits\/their case. (496-A-B)\n1.16.On\t the enquiry if it is found that the lands  are\t not\ntank L1.16.On the enquiry if it is found that the lands\t are\nnot tank L1.16.On the enquiry if it is found that the  lands\nare not tank fisheries as on the date of vesting or that the\nrespondent  had not submitted option in Form `B'  to  retain\npossession  of\tthe  lands  as\ttank  fisheries\t within\t the\nprescribed period, then the lands stood vested in the  State\nfree  from all incumbrances and authorities are entitled  to\ntake possession of the land under Sec. 10(1) read with\tSec.\n10(3).\t In case if it rinds that the lands were being\tused\nas  tank  fisheries as on the date of vesting and  that\t the\nrespondents  exercised the option within the time to  retain\npossession  and\t is continuing to use the tank\tfishery\t for\npisciculture  or for fishing; and if it has been  continuing\nin possession of tank fishery, It is free to impose, if\t not\nalready\t imposed,  such\t terms\tand  conditions\t as  may  be\nnecessary  to  ensure  continued use  of  tank\tfishery\t for\npisciculture or for fishing, subject to payment of such rent\nas  may\t be fixed or revised and ultimately entered  in\t the\nRecord\t of  Rights.   In  case,  the\trespondent   commits\ncontravention  thereof,\t it is open to the State  to  resume\npossession.   In case the respondent is not using  the\ttank\nfishery\t for  pisciculture or for fishing or  alienated\t the\nlands it is open to the appellants to take possession of the\nlands  and all sales if made by the respondents do not\tbind\nthe State. (496-C-E)\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2485 of 1992.
\nFrom the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.1991 of the  Calcutta
\nHigh Court in F.M.A.T. No. 2532 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
P.S. Poti and Rathin Das for the Appellants.
\nDr.  Shankar Ghosh, Raj Kumar Gupta and P.C. Kapur  for\t the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nK. RAMASWAMY.  J. Special leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
487<\/span><\/p>\n
This  appeal  arises  against  the  judgment  dated  October
\n8,’1991\t of the’ Division Bench of the Calcutta\t High  Court
\nmade in F.M.A.T. No. 2532 of 1991.  The first respondent,  a
\nlimited Company filed under Art. 226 of the constitution  of
\nIndia  Civil Order No. 16339 (W) of 1988 for a\tmandamus  to
\nrefrain the appellants from giving effect to the vesting  of
\nthe lands in Dag No. 1, Khatian No., 10, Tauzi No. 56,\tJ.L.
\nNo.  26,  Mouza Chowkgaria within  P.S.\t Kasba,\t admeasuring
\n128.40 acres and to take possession of tank fisheries  lying
\ntherein\t pursuant  to the provisions of West  Bengal  Estate
\nAcquisition  Act, 1953, Act 1 of 1954, for short ‘the  Act’.
\nThe learned Single Judge directed an action under Sec. 10(2)
\nof  the Act after giving an opportunity to  the\t respondents
\nand  to take possession of the said lands pursuant  thereto.
\nOn  appeal the Division Bench in the impugned judgment\theld
\nthat the appellants should take action under the West Bengal
\nLand  Reforms Act, 1955 within a period of two\tmonths\tfrom
\nthe  date  of  the said judgment and  on  its  failure,\t the
\nrespondents would be at liberty to deal with and dispose  of
\nthe lands in its own manner.  Until then the appellants were
\nrestrained   to\t take  possession  of  the  land.    Feeling
\naggrieved against the said direction the above appeal  under
\nArt. 136 has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
The  Revenue Officer found from finally published record  of
\nrights that the lands in question were classified as  ‘Beel’
\n(marshy\t land)\tand tank fisheries would  he  classified  as
\n‘Beel Mash Khas’.  The learned Single Judge and the Division
\nBench of the High Court found that when the Revenue  Officer
\ninitiated  proceedings\tto revise the old Jama Rs.  1230.  9
\nAnas  in three Jamas of Rs. 1,188 and odd in khata No.\t102;
\nRs.  396  and odd in khata No. 128 and Rs. 3024 and  odd  in
\nkhata No. 131. the respondent succeeded in his appeal  under
\nSec.  44(3)  of\t the  Act holding  the\tlands  to  be  ‘Tank
\nfisheries’   and  that,\t therefore,  old  Jama\twas  to\t  be
\nmaintained.   So the Division Bench directed to take  action
\nunder the Land Reforms Act.\n<\/p>\n
Shri  P.S. Poti, learned Senior Counsel for  the  appellants
\ncontended  that\t by operation of Secs. 4 and 5 of  the\tAct,
\nfisheries being one of the interests that stood extinguished
\nand vested in the State Govt.  Free of all incumbrances with
\neffect\tfrom June 1, 1956, the respondents have lost  right,
\ntitle  and  interest  therein.\tSection 6  only\t enables  an
\nintermediary  to  retain possession  of\t certain  enumerated
\nlands  which includes “tank fisheries” provided he makes  an
\napplication in form ‘B’ within the specified time expressing
\nhis intention to retain the lands.  Since the respondent had
\nfailed\tto do so the entire lands including  tank  fisheries
\nstood vested in the state.  As per the entries in the record
\nof  rights  the lands are only Beel (Marshy lands)  and\t not
\ntank  fisheries\t and, therefore, even the  exercise  of\t the
\noption to retain possession is not available.  Even assuming
\nthat  the lands are tank fisheries, what was saved from\t the
\noperation of the Act is the entitlement of the respondent to
\nhold
\n488<\/span>
\nthe land as a tenant without any interest therein except the
\nright  to  remain in khas (physical) possession\t subject  to
\nsuch terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the  Govt.
\nand payment of rent.  Since the respondent raised a  dispute
\nthe  learned single Judge rightly directed an enquiry  under
\nSec.  10 (2) in this behalf and to take action\tpursuant  to
\nits  result under Sec. 10(1).  The Division Bench  committed
\ngravest error in treating that the decision of the  Tribunal
\nunder Sec. 44(3) relating to Jama to be final and the  lands
\nto be tank fisheries and that the respondent is entitled  to
\nretain\tkhas possession with all right, title  and  interest
\ntherein\t as an owner.  The direction given to  initiate\t the
\naction under the Land Reforms Act 1955 within the  specified
\nperiod\t and  on  failure  thereto  liberty  given  to\t the
\nrespondent to alienate the lands is beyond the relief sought
\nin  the\t writ  petition.   Therefore,  the  Division   Bench
\ncommitted manifest error of law warranting interference.
\nDr.  Ghosh,  learned  senior counsel  for  the\trespondents,
\ncontended that initially Devendra Nath Dey Sarkar  purchased
\nthe  lands from Harkishan Mondal, the original\tZamindar  in
\n1911  and  from\t him  the  respondents\thad  purchased\t the
\nleasehold rights in 1937 and ever since they have been using
\nthe lands as tank fisheries.  When notification under Sec. 4
\nwas  issued, the lands were being used as.  tank  fisheries.
\nDespite\t  its  vesting,\t by  operation\tof  Sec.  6(2)\t the
\nrespondent  has right to retain possession as an owner.\t  In
\nsupport\t thereof  he  placed reliance on State\tof  U.P.  v.
\nKrishna Gopal & Anr.<\/a> [1988] Suppl. 2 SCR 391, State of\tWest
\nBengaI\tv. Atul Krishna Shaw & Anr.<\/a> [1990] Supp.  1  SCR  91
\nand  Sasanka Sekhar Maity & Ors. v. Union of India<\/a> [1980]  3
\nSCR  1209.   He\t further contended  that  the  liability  of
\ndispossession  of the respondent from the lands would  arise
\nonly  if  the possession is found to be\t unlawful.   But  by
\noperation of Sees. 6(2) and 10(5) the possession is  lawful.
\nThe  order  of the Appellate Tribunal passed in\t 1957  under
\nsection\t 44(3) having been allowed to become final  and\t the
\ncivil  suit  for declaration that it is Beel  and  not\ttank
\nfisheries  having  filed  by the State\tand  got  dismissed,
\nconcludes  that\t the  lands  in\t question  are\tonly   “tank
\nfisheries”.   By operation of Subsec. (2) for Sec. 6 of\t the
\nAct the respondent is entitled to retain possession and\t the
\naction for dispossession under Sec. 10 (1) is illegal.\t The
\nDivision  Bench\t therefore,  rightly  directed\tto  initiate
\nproceedings  under the Land Reforms Act and to\ttake  action
\nthereunder.\n<\/p>\n
Admittedly  the\t Act came into force  on  February  12,1954.
\nNotification  under Secs. 4(1) and (3) was published in\t the
\nprescribed  manner  specifying the date of  vesting  of\t the
\nestate\tand  had  come into effect from June  1,  1956.\t  By
\noperation  of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 5 the estate and all\t the
\nrights\tof intermediaries including fisheries in the  estate
\nshall  stand determined and ceased and stood vested  in\t the
\nState  free  from all incumbrances.   “Incumbrance”  defined
\nunder Sec. 2(h) of the Act means ‘in relation to estates and
\nrights of intermediaries therein, does not
\n489<\/span>
\ninclude the rights of a raiyat or of an under-raiyat or of a
\nnon-agricultural  tenant, but shall, except in the  case  of
\nland  allowed  to be retained by an intermediary  under\t the
\nprovisions  of\tsec. 6, include all rights or  interests  of
\nwhatever  nature,  belonging  to  intermediaries  or   other
\npersons,  which relates to lands comprised in estates or  to
\nthe  produce  thereof.\t Therefore,  title  to,\t rights\t  or
\ninterests  in  lands  which include  fisheries\theld  by  an
\nintermediary  shall stand extinguished and ceased and  stood
\nvested\t in  the  state\t free  of  all\tincumbrances.\t The
\nrespondents being purchasers of lease hold interest in\ttank
\nfisheries,  as\tper  their own case, it\t also  stood  extin-
\nguished.   But,\t however, since the  appellant\ttreated\t the
\nrespondent  as an intermediary, we proceed on that  footing.
\nThe  exceptions\t engrafted in the incumbrance  and  exempted
\nfrom  the operation of Sections 4 and 5 are only the  rights
\nof  a raiyat or of an under-raiyat or of a  non-agricultural
\ntenant\tand the right of retention of possession allowed  to
\nan  intermediary under Sec.6 of the Act.  All other  rights,
\ninterest  of  whatever\tnature or little  belonging  to\t the
\nintermediaries\tor  other persons who hold the\tlands  under
\nlease from intermediary should also stood extinguished.\t All
\ngrants\tand  confirmation of title, to\testates\t and  rights
\ntherein,  to  which the declaration of vesting\tapplies\t and
\nwhich  were  made in favour of\tintermediaries\tshall  stand
\ndismissed  and ceased by operation of Sec. 5(1) (b)  of\t the
\nAct,
\nSection\t  6  postulates\t by  a\tnon-obstanti   clause\tthat
\nnotwithstanding\t anything  contained  in secs. 4  and  5  an
\nintermediary  shall,  except in the cases mentioned  in\t the
\nproviso to sub-sec. (2) but subject to the other  provisions
\nof  that sub-sec., be intitled “to retain with\teffect\tfrom
\nthe date of vesting”, various kinds of lands like  homestead
\netc.  enumerated therein including ‘tank fisheries’  covered
\nby clause (e) thereto.\tThe explanation of ‘tank  fisheries’
\nmeans,\t“a reservior or place for the storage of the  water,
\nwhether formed naturally of by excavation or by construction
\nof embankments, which is being used for pisciculture or\t for
\nfishing,  together with the sub-soil and the banks  of\tsuch
\nreservoir or place, except such portion of the banks as\t are
\nincluded  in  a\t homestead or in a  garden  or\torchard\t and
\nincludes  any  right  or pisciculture  or  fishing  in\tsuch
\nreservoir or place”.  Therefore, if lands comprised of\ttank
\nfisheries  whether naturally formed or by excavation  or  by
\nconstruction  of embankments being used for pisciculture  or
\nfishing,  the  intermediaries  became  entitled\t to   retain
\npossession, despite the intermediaries having been  divested
\nof right, title and interest therein.  This is made manifest
\nby  Sec. 10(5) of the Act which postulates that ‘nothing  in
\nthis  section  shall authorise the Collector  to  take\tkhas
\npossession of any estate or of any right of an\tintermediary
\ntherein, which may be retained under sec.6’. Sub-sec. (2) of
\nSec.  6 declares that, “An intermediary who is\tentitled  to
\nretain\tpossession of any land under sub-sec.(1)  shall\t “be
\ndeemed to hold such land” directly under the State from\t the
\ndate  of  vesting  as a tenant, subject to  such  terms\t and
\nconditions  as may be prescribed and subject to\t payment  of
\nsuch rent as may be determined under the provisions of this
\n490<\/span>
\nAct and as entered in the record of rights finally published
\nunder  Chapter\tV except that no rent shall be\tpayable\t for
\nland referred to in clause (h) or (i), provided that if\t any
\ntank fishery or any land comprised in a tea-garden, orchard,
\nmill,  factory or workshop was held immediately\t before\t the
\ndate  of vesting under lease, such lease shall be deemed  to
\nhave  been given by the State Govt.  On the same  terms\t and
\nconditions as immediately before such date, subject to\tsuch
\nmodification  therein  as the State Govt. may think  fit  to
\nmake’.\n<\/p>\n
On   the  issue\t of  notification  under  Sec.49,  Sec.\t  52
\nprescribed procedure to deal with raiyats and  under-raiyats
\ncovered\t in Chapter 11 etc.  It says that the provisions  in
\nChapter II shall with such modification as may be  necessary
\napply  mutatis\tmutandis to raiyats or under-raiyats  as  if
\nsuch raiyats or non-raiyats were intermediaries and the land
\nheld by them were estates and such a person holding under  a
\nraiyat\tor an under-raiyat were a raiyat for the purpose  of
\nclauses (c) and (d) of Sec.5, provided that, where a  raiyat
\nor an under-raiyat retains under sec.6 any land comprised in
\na  holding,  then notwithstanding anything to  the  contrary
\ncontained  in sub-sec. (2) of sec.6, then he shall  pay\t the
\nrent  as  prescribed in clauses (a) to (d)  thereto.   Under
\nSec.5(c) every raiyat holding any land under an intermediary
\nshall hold the same directly under the state as if the state
\nhad  been  the\tintermediary  and  on  the  same  terms\t and
\nconditions as immediately before the date of vesting.\tThus
\nthe right, title and interest of a raiyat or under-raiyat in
\nthe  lands  in his possession and enjoyment are\t saved.\t  By
\noperation of law they became full owners thereof subject  to
\nthe  terms and conditions that maybe imposed under  Sec.  52
\nand payment of Jama existing on the date of notification  or
\nrevised\t from time to time and finally entered in Record  of
\nRights.\n<\/p>\n
The pre-existing rights of the intermediaries in the  estate
\nto  which the declaration applied shall stand vested in\t the
\nState  free from all incumbrances.  Section 6 does not\thave
\nthe effect of divesting the state of the vested right, title
\nand  interest of the intermediary.  One of the\trights\ti.e.
\npossession  held by the intermediaries is the only  interest
\nsaved  by  Sec.6. from the operation of Secs. 4 and  5.\t The
\nfishery rights also stood vested.  The pre-existing  rights,
\ntitle  and interest therein also shall stand  determined  as
\nagainst\t the state and ceased.\tThe Collector  had  symbolic
\npossession under Sec. 10.  But by use of non-obstanti clause
\nin  Sec.6 (1) the respondent became entitled to retain\tkhas
\npossession  of\ttank  fisheries,  and  he  shall  hold\ttank
\nfisheries directly under the state on such prescribed  terms
\nand conditions and subject to payment of such rent as may be
\ndetermined  under  the\tAct from time  to  time\t as  finally
\nentered\t  in  Record  of  Rights.   If\tany  lease  by\t the
\nintermediary of any tank fisheries granted prior to the date
\nof  vesting, by operation of the proviso to sub-sec. (2)  of
\nSec. 6, the lease shall be deemed to have been given by\t the
\nState Govt.  On the same terms and conditions and subject to
\nsuch modification
\n491<\/span>
\ntherein\t as the State Govt. may think fit.  Such holding  of
\nthe land by the intermediary of the tank fishery shall be as
\na tenant.  The word ‘retain’ has been defined in Black’s Law
\nDictionary,  6th Edition, page 1316 to mean ‘to continue  to
\nhold, have, use, recognise, etc. and to keep’.\tIn  Collings
\nEnglish Dictionary at page 1244 ‘retain’ has been defined as
\n‘to keep in one’s possession, to be able to hold or contain,
\nto  hold  in position, to keep for one’s future\t use  as  by
\npaying\t a  retainer  or  nominal  charges’.\tIn   Webster
\nComprehensive  Dictionary International Edition, Volume\t II,
\nat  page 1075, the word ‘retain’ has been defined, ‘to\tkeep
\nor continue to keep in one’s possession’.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 10(2) of the Act empowers the Collector, after\t his
\ntaking\tcharge\tof  the\t estate\t and  the  interest  of\t the
\nintermediaries\tunder Sec. 10(1), to issue a  written  order
\nserving in the prescribed manner requiring the\tintermediary
\nor  any person in possession (khas or symbolic) of any\tsuch
\nestate or any interest to give up such possession by a\tdate
\nto be specified in the order which shall not be earlier than
\n60  days from the date of service of the order,\t etc.\tSub-
\nsection\t 5 of Sec. 10 prohibits him to take khas  possession
\nof  any right of intermediary in the estate  retained  under
\nSec.6.\n<\/p>\n
The  conjoint operational conspectus assists us to  conclude
\nthat the preexisting right, title and interest in the  lands
\nsituated in an eatate stood extinguished and ceased to\thave
\neffect on and from notified date i.e. June 1, 1956 and stood
\nvested\tin the state free from all incumbrances.   The\tnon-
\nobstanti  clause under Sec.6 excluded from the operation  of
\nsees.  4  and 5 only of the interest of\t the  respondent  to
\nretain\tphysical possession of the lands covered  by  Sec.6,
\nsubject to Sec 6 (2).  The intermediary by operation of Sec.
\n10(2) shall be required to submit in form ‘B’ within 60 days
\nfrom  the  date of issuing notice under Sec. 10 (1)  of\t his
\nintention  to retain possession of the tank  fisheries.\t  On
\nsuch   submission  of  Form  ‘B’,  the\t Collector   without
\ndispossessing  him\/it  shall be entitled to  prescribe\tsuch
\nterms and conditions to which the intermediary or the lessee
\nshall be bound and hold the tank fishery and shall remain in
\npossession, using the tank fisheries for pisciculture or for
\nfishing\t and  subject  to payment of such  rent\t as  may  be
\ndetermined under the Act and finally entered in the  Records
\nof Rights.\n<\/p>\n
Under Sec. 39 in Chapter V, the State Govt has to carry\t out
\nthe  purpose  of the Act.  It shall prepare the\t Records  of
\nRights in respect of the lands in an estate in any  district
\nor  a part of a district in the manner\tprescribed  therein.
\nSection\t 44  provides the procedure for publication  of\t the
\ndraft  and  final Record of Rights  prepared  or  “revised”.
\nSub-section  (1)  thereof postulates that when a  Record  of
\nRights\thas been prepared or “revised” the  Revenue  Officer
\nwas enjoined to have it published in the prescribed  manner.
\nOn receipt of objections, if any, made
\n492<\/span>
\nregarding  any\tentry therein or any ommission\tthereof,  he
\nshall  consider\t the same and is enjoined to pass  an  order
\nunder  Sec.5A  of the Act.  By operation of the\t proviso  to
\nsub-sec.  (1) of Sec. 44 the order so passed under  Sec.  5A
\nshall  be  final,  subject to the  order  of  the  appellate
\nTribunal  under\t Sec. 44 (3) and during the  continuance  of
\nthat order it is not liable to be reopened.  The  respondent
\nis  not\t right in its contention, as found favour  with\t the
\nHigh  Court, that entries once made shall be final  and\t can
\nnever be revised.  The word ‘revised’ under sub-sec. (1)  of
\nSec. 44 indicates that the State Govt. or its officers shall
\nbe entitled to revise from time to time the Record of Rights
\nand to make necessary entries or corrections in the relevant
\ncolumns of Record of Rights in its settlement operations  or
\nas  per exigency envisaged under the Act and the rules\tmade
\nthere  the order under Sec. 44(3) becomes final so  long  as
\nthere is no revision effected.\tThe question of res judicate
\ntherefore,  does not arise and the previous appellate  order
\ndoes  not preclude the authorities to revise the  Record  of
\nRights.\t The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, is
\nnot  right  in its conclusion that the order passed  by\t the
\nappellate  authority  under  Sec. 44(3)\t is  final  and\t the
\nauthorities  have  no jurisdiction to revise the  Record  of
\nRights.\t  After the act was amended by Act 33 of 1973,\tSec.
\n57B was brought on statute which had barred the jurisdiction
\nof  the\t civil courts and exclusive  jurisdiction  has\tbeen
\nconferred  on  the  revenue authorities\t to  deal  with\t the
\nmatters arising under the Act.\tSo the dismissal of the suit
\nas having been abated is of little consequence.
\nThe appellants contend that even on the date of vesting\t the
\nlands  in question are “Beel” lands and that it is not\ttank
\nfisheries.  The entries in the record of the rights disclose
\nthat  the lands in question are being used as  homestead  or
\nfor agricultural purpose and that, therefore, it is not tank
\nfishery.  The respondents disputed the Govt.’s stand and  so
\nit is a disputed question of fact.  We do not propose to  go
\ninto, nor decide the same.  It is true, as rightly contended
\nby  Dr. Ghosh, that the lands once retained under  Sec.6  by
\nthe intermediary and accepted by the authorities pursuant to
\nform ‘B’ declaration, the intermediary is entitled to retain
\npossession and is not liable to dispossession so long as  he
\ncomplies with the terms and conditions, if any, imposed\t and
\nthe rent imposed is being paid.\t The avowed object of Act is
\nto divest the pre-existing right, title and interest of\t the
\nintermediary  in  the  lands  situated in  an  estate  in  a
\ndistrict or part of the district and   shall stand  divested
\nfrom  the  Zamindar or intermediary except of  a  raiyat  or
\nunder  raiyat or non-agricultural  tenant.   Notwithstanding
\nsuch divestment thereof the intermediary has been  empowered
\nto  hold and retain possession directly under the state\t and
\nhold  it as a tenant, subject to such terms  and  conditions
\nand  subject to payment of rent as may be  determined  under
\nthe Act.  Therefore, the entitlement to retain possession of
\nthe  land i.e. tank fisheries in this case is  not  absolute
\nbut   hedged with the conditions precedent of expressing his
\nintention to retain
\n493<\/span>
\npossession by filing form ‘B’ within 60 days and abiding  to
\ncomply with such terms and conditions as may be imposed\t and
\nalso  payment of rent.\tBy operation of the  explanation  to
\nSec.  6(1) (e) “tank fisheries” not only it must be  a\ttank
\nfishery at the date of vesting, but it must also continue to
\nbe  used for pisciculture or for fishing.  The\temphasis  on
\n‘being used’ obviously is that the tank fisheries should  be
\ncontinued  to  be used for public purpose, namely  the\tfish
\nseedling   or  fish  must  be  made  available\tfor   public
\nconsumption.   Dr. Ghosh is right that the crucial  date  is
\nthe  date of vesting with regard to tank fishery also.\t Not
\nonly  that the intermediary shall hold the tank\t fishery  on
\nthe date of vesting as tank fishery but continue to hold and
\nuse  the  same\tthereafter for pisciculture  or\t fishing  as
\nexplained  in explanation 6(1) (e) of the  Act.\t  Subsequent
\nconversion of the land as tank fisheries is not material.
\nWhether,  as  a fact, it was used as a tank fishery  on\t the
\ndate of vesting i.e. June 1, 1956 and being continued to  be
\nused as such or converted later on is a question of fact  to
\nbe  adjudicated after giving reasonable opportunity  to\t the
\nrespondents.  Equally whether the respondents exercised\t the
\noption\tto retain possession of tank fishery within 60\tdays
\nfrom  the date of publication of notification under s. 4  or
\nthe  notice  under Sec. 10(1), etc., is also a\tquestion  of
\nfact to be determined.\n<\/p>\n
In Saroj Kumar Bose v.\tKanailal Mondal & Ors.<\/a> [1985] 2\t SCR
\n393  the facts were that the predecessor in interest of\t the
\nrespondents   took permanent lease of fishery right  without
\nsub-soil  rights under a registered lease-deed prior to\t the
\nAct  came  into\t force\tand  they  continued  to  remain  in
\npossession  and\t was using the lands as tank  fishery.\t The
\nlassor,\t filed\ta suit for recovery of\trent  together\twith
\ninterest.  The appellant lessee resisted the suit  liability
\ncontending  that the tank fishery stood vested in the  State
\nand that, therefore, he was absolved of his liability to pay
\nrent to the lessors.  The trial court decreed the suit.\t  On
\nappeal, it was confirmed.  Dismissing the appeal, this court
\nheld  that  by operation of sec.6 of the act  the  right  to
\nretain\tpossession  of tank fishery by an  intermediary\t was
\nsaved  and  that,  therefore, the  lessor  continued  as  an
\nintermediary to remain in khas possession.  In spite of\t the
\nestate\tvested in the State, the tank fishery  continued  to
\nremain in possession of the lessor.  In that context it\t was
\nheld, as relied on by Dr. Ghosh, that khas possession is not
\na   necessary  condition  for  retaining  the  property\t  by
\nintermediary.  State had recognised the plaintiffs as tenant
\nby  accepting rent from them.  Therefore, it was  held\tthat
\ninterest of the plaintiff did not vest in the State either.
\nIn  State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw & Anr.<\/a>  [1990]
\nSupp.  1 SCR page 90, by a bench of this court to which\t one
\nof  us (K.  Ramaswamy,J.) was a member, the facts were\tthat
\nafter  the  estate vested in the state, the  tank  fisheries
\ncontinued  to  remain  in  possessions\tof  the\t  respondent
\nintermediaries.\t Suo moto
\n494<\/span>
\nproceedings were taken for correction of the  classification
\nof lands on the grounds that the plots were wrongly recorded
\nas  fishery  plots.   The respondents objected\tto  the\t re-
\nclassification\tcontending  that  they\twere  continuing  to
\ncultivate  pisciculture\t in  the lands.\t The  claim  of\t the
\nrespondents  was  negatived by the Settlement  Officer.\t  On
\nappeal,\t the Tribunal reversed the order of  the  Settlement
\nOfficer\t and confirmed the original classification  as\ttank
\nfishery.  On a writ petition filed in the High Court by\t the
\nState,\tit  was\t dismissed in limine.\tWhile  allowing\t the
\nappeal,\t  this\tcourt  held  that  the\tcrucial\t  date\t for
\nconsideration  whether\tthe lands were being  used  as\ttank
\nfishery\t  was  the  date  of  the  vesting  and\t  subsequent
\nconversion  was not material and that by operation of Sec  6
\n(2)  of\t the Act, the tank fishery stood excluded  from\t the
\noperation of Sec. 4 and Sec. 5 of the Act.  Placing reliance
\non the findings at p. 101A & B, namely, ‘Therefore, when  by
\nmeans  of reservoir or a place for storage of water  whether
\nformed\tnaturally  or by excavation or\tby  construction  of
\nembankment, is being used for pisciculture or for fishing is
\nobviously  a  continous process as a source  of\t livelihood,
\nwould  be ‘tank fisheries’ within the meaning of  Sec.6\t (1)\n<\/p>\n
(e)’.\tSuch  tanks  stand excluded from  the  operation  of
\nSections  4  and  5  and the crucial date  is  the  date  of
\nvesting.\n<\/p>\n
As seen earlier the effect of the operation of Secs.4 and  5
\nis  divesting the intermediaries of his pre-existing  right,
\ntitle  and  interest in the estate except those\t which\twere
\nexempted  from\tthe  operation\tof  the\t Act.\tOne  of\t the
\nexemptions  is\tretention  of the possession  of  the  lands
\ncovered\t by Sec 6 of the Act.  See 6(1) (e), tand  fisheries
\nis  one such.  Sub-section (2) amplifies its  effect.\tSub-
\nsection ‘(2) transposes the pre-existing possessory right of
\nthe retained lands of an intermediary of tank fisheries into
\nholder\tof it as a tenant without any interest therein.\t  By
\nfiction of law the respondent was transposed as “holder”  of
\nthe  possession directly under the State as tenant,  subject
\nto such terms and conditions as may be specified and subject
\nto  payment of rent as may be determined from time to  time.
\nTherefore, what was saved by non-obstenti clause of Sec.6(1)
\n& (2) of the Act is the right of retention. of the  Physical
\n(Khas)\tPossession of tank fisheries.  What was intended  in
\nAtul  Kishan  Shaw’s  case  was\t that  Sec.  6(2)saved\t the
\nretention of possession of tank fisheries and not  divesting
\nthe state of the vested rights etc. in the estate.
\nIn  South Indian States of A.P. and Tamil Nadu etc.  of\t the
\nMadras\tProvince,  Madras Estate (Abolition  and  Conversion
\ninto Raiyatvari) Act, 26 of 1948 is in operation.  After the
\nstates reorganisation, in Tamil Nadu it is called Tamil Nadu
\nAct  and  in  Andhra Pradesh it\t is  called  Andhra  Pradesh
\n(Andhra Area) Act.  Thereunder Sec. II provides procedure to
\ngrant  raiyatvari patta to a raiyat in occupation.   Section
\n3(2) (d) proviso gives statutory protection to a raiyat from
\ndispossession till raiytavari patta has been granted-, Sees.
\n12  to 14 give right to landholder to obtain patta  and\t see\n<\/p>\n
15. empowers the settlement officer to grant
\n495<\/span>
\npatta  to the landholders.  Section 19 provides that  “where
\nany  raiyat  or\t non-raiyat  land  has\tbeen  sold  by\t any
\nlandholder for non-agricultural purpose before first day  of
\nJuly,  1945, the buyers shall be entitled to keep  the\tland
\nsubject\t to  payment by him to the Govt. of  the  raiyatvari
\nassessment or ground rent which may be imposed upon the land
\nand under the proviso it was declared that sale was not void
\nor illegal under any law in force at that time.\t The  object
\nof those provisions is to confer raiyatvari rights on person
\nin occupation be it raiyat or landholder absolutely with  no
\nfurther\t conditions.  Thereafter he is entitled to  use\t the
\nraiyati land as if he is the owner thereof and the liability
\nis  to\tpay  only  land assessment or  cist.   There  is  no
\nlimitation  on\tthe  nature of user of the  land.   But\t the
\nlanguage in the Act appears to be different.  As regards the
\nraiyat\tor  under-raiyat they are treated  differently\tfrom
\nintermediary.\tAs  regards  the raiyat\t and  non-raiyat  is
\nconcerned his pre-existing right, title and interest in\t the
\nland was not abolished and he is entitled to retain all\t his
\nboundle\t of rights as intermediary directly under the  state
\nsubject to the orders passed as per the procedure prescribed
\nunder  Sec.52  and the relevant rules and payment  of  rent.
\nBut  in the case of an intermediary, he has been given\tonly
\nright  to  retain possession under Sec. 6 of  the  homestead
\nlands or land comprised in or appertaining to buildings\t and
\nstructures,   25  acres\t of  agricultural  lands   in\tkhas
\npossession,  factories, workshops, tank fisheries  or  other
\nenumerated properties etc. without any interest therein\t and
\nsubject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed\t and
\npayment\t of rent excising or revised as per  the  provisions
\nrelevant  thereto.   Sub-section  (2) of  Sec.\t6  expressly
\npostulates that if he holds the tank fisheries should be for
\ncontinued for use as tank fisheries and it would be  subject
\nto such terms and conditions and subject to payment of\trent
\nas  may be fixed.  The holding of the land is as  a  tenant,
\nthe emphasis is that his possession is without any  interest
\nin the land.  Under T.P. Act a tenant has leasehold interest
\nin the land.  But in Sec. 6 (2) as a tenant for the  purpose
\nof  payment  of\t the rent and retention\t of  possession\t and
\nappears\t to  be nothing more.  As regards  tank\t fishery  is
\nconcerned, though exemption has been granted, it is  subject
\nto  the\t condition  of continued user  for  pisciculture  of
\nfishing.   From the scheme of the Act it would\tappear\tthat
\nthe intermediary or the lessee gets no absolute right in the
\ntank fisheries which were already divested but to remain  in
\nkhas  possession and to enjoy the usufruct thereof i.e.\t for
\npisciculture  or  fishing without any interest\tor  sub-soil
\nrights and subject to such terms and conditions and subjects
\nto  payment of rent as prescribed under the Act, but not  as
\nowner thereof.\tThe direction, therefore, by the High  Court
\nthat the respondents are entitled to dispose of the land  is
\ncontrary  to  and in negation of the scheme of the  Act\t and
\nRules.\tTherefore, it is manifestly illegal.
\nThe  appeal  is\t accordingly  allowed.\t The  order  of\t the
\nDivision  Bench\t of  the  High\tCourt  is  set\taside.\t The
\ndirection of the Single Judge is restored.  The appellant
\n496<\/span>
\nis  free to issue notice to the respondent under Sec.  10(2)
\nof the Act and conduct an enquiry into and find:- (1) on the
\ndate  of the vesting whether the lands were being  used\t for
\npisciculture or fishing i.e. tank fisheries; (2) whether the
\nrespondent had submitted form ‘B’ within the prescribed time
\nexercising  the option to retain possession of the lands  in
\nquestion  as tank fisheries; and (3) whether the  respondent
\nis  continuing\tto  use\t the  lands  in\t question  as\ttank
\nfisheries.   Reasonable opportunities shall be given to\t the
\nrespondents to prove its\/their case.\n<\/p>\n
On  the enquiry if it is found that the lands are  not\ttank
\nfisheries  as  on  the\tdate of\t the  vesting  or  that\t the
\nrespondent  had not submitted option in Form ‘B’  to  retain
\npossession  of\tthe  lands  as\ttank  fisheries\t within\t the
\nprescribed period, then the lands stood vested in the  state
\nfree  from all incumbrances and authorities are entitled  to
\ntake possession of the land under Sec. 10(1) read with\tSec.
\n10(3).\t In case if it finds that the lands were being\tused
\nas  tank  fisheries as on the date of vesting and  that\t the
\nrespondents  exercised the option within the time to  retain
\npossession  and\t is continuing to use the tank\tfishery\t for
\npisciculture  or for fishing; and if it has been  continuing
\nin possession of tank fishery, it is free to impose, if\t not
\nalready\t impossed  such\t terms\tand  conditions\t as  may  be
\nnecessary  to  ensure  continued use  of  tank\tfishery\t for
\npisciculture or for fishing, subject to payment of such rent
\nas  may\t be fixed or revised and ultimately entered  in\t the
\nRecord\t of   Rights.\tIn  case  the\trespondent   commits
\ncontravention  thereof,\t it is open to the state  to  resume
\npossession.   In case the respondent is not using  the\ttank
\nfishery\t for  pisciculture or for fishing or  alienated\t the
\nlands it is open to the appellants to take possession of the
\nlands  and all sales if made by the respondents do not\tbind
\nthe state.\n<\/p>\n
The   appeal   is  accordingly\tallowed\t  with\t the   above
\nmodification  and  the rule absolute issued by\tthe  learned
\nsingle\tJudge of the High Court will stand modified  to\t the
\nabove\textent\tand  the  writ\tpetition  is   disposed\t  of
\naccordingly.   In the circumstances parties are directed  to
\nbear their own costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n
VPR.\t\t\t\tAppeal allowed.\n497<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of West Bengal And Ors vs Suburban Agriculture Dairy & … on 3 May, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 2103, 1993 SCR (3) 481 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: SUBURBAN AGRICULTURE DAIRY & FISHERIES PVT. LTD. ANDANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/05\/1993 […]<\/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-5733","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of West Bengal And Ors vs Suburban Agriculture Dairy & ... on 3 May, 1993 - 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-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993\" \/>\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 And Ors vs Suburban Agriculture Dairy & ... on 3 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993\" \/>\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=\"1993-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-12T08:46:55+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=\"37 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-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of West Bengal And Ors vs Suburban Agriculture Dairy & … on 3 May, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-12T08:46:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993\"},\"wordCount\":5219,\"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-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993\",\"name\":\"State Of West Bengal And Ors vs Suburban Agriculture Dairy & ... on 3 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-12T08:46:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of West Bengal And Ors vs Suburban Agriculture Dairy & … on 3 May, 1993\"}]},{\"@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 And Ors vs Suburban Agriculture Dairy & ... on 3 May, 1993 - 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-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of West Bengal And Ors vs Suburban Agriculture Dairy & ... on 3 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-12T08:46:55+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":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of West Bengal And Ors vs Suburban Agriculture Dairy & … on 3 May, 1993","datePublished":"1993-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-12T08:46:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993"},"wordCount":5219,"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-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993","name":"State Of West Bengal And Ors vs Suburban Agriculture Dairy & ... on 3 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-12T08:46:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-suburban-agriculture-dairy-on-3-may-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of West Bengal And Ors vs Suburban Agriculture Dairy & … on 3 May, 1993"}]},{"@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\/5733","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=5733"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5733\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5733"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5733"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5733"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}