9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion that ignoring the said decree the proceeding Under Section 14T(3) of the Act should continue. 2. Therefore, two questions arise for consideration in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. First question that arises for determination in this writ application is whether a tribunal constituted under West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, can declare that a decree for declaration of the title and permanent injunction in favour of the writ petitioner was a nullity as the same was passed in violation of the provisions contained in Section 57B(2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, notwithstanding the fact that State of West Bengal was a party to such decree, and such decree has attained finality. 3. It is now settled position of law that entry in a record-of-rights does not create any title nor does it extinguish the title of lawful owner but the entry has a presumption of correctness which is, of course, rebuttable. In such a situation, if a Civil Court declares title of a person in respect of a property and restrains the State of West Bengal from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property, the presumption arisin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; order remains effective and is in reality valid. It follows that an order may be void for one purpose and valid for another, and that it may be void against one person but valid against another. 6. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that a party aggrieved by the invalidity of the order was required to approach the Court for relief of declaration that such order against him was inoperative and not binding upon him, and that he should approach the Court within the prescribed period of limitation, and if the statutory time limit had expired, the Court even could not grant declaration sought for. 7. Even in a subsequent case of Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and Anr. v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported in [1997]2SCR152 , the Supreme Court in clear terms asserted that even a party guilty of disobedience of an order passed by an authority without jurisdiction could not escape punishment on the plea that the order was passed by an authority having no jurisdiction or that it was a nullity. 8. It is, therefore, clear that once the State of West Bengal has suffered a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of a property and such decree has attain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed an interim order staying the operation of the order impugned therein by which certain further conditions are also imposed upon the State. 14. Therefore, the question that arises for determination is, simply because in an application for grant of special leave, the Supreme Court has stayed the operation of an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court declaring a statutory provision as ultra vires the Constitution of India as an interim measure by imposing further conditions upon the State in those cases, whether a citizen who is not a party to the previous litigation can be deprived of the benefit of doctrine of precedent in resisting the action of the State on the ground that it could not invoke the ultra vires provision of the statute against him. 15. Before entering into such question, we propose to take notice of the actual orders of stay passed by the Apex Court in those proceedings. 16. It appears from the order dated March 20, 1998 that the order of the Division Bench of the High Court was stayed subject to the order of status quo regarding possession on spot to be maintained by both the parties. It further appears from a subsequent order dated December 16, 1999 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra vires has been passed in an appeal against such order. The object of granting interim order is to see that the relief claimed in the appeal may not become in appropriate or the appeal does not become infructuous for not granting such interim order; but by mere grant of interim stay, the effect of a binding precedent is not destabilized. Over and above, the interim orders of the stay granted by the Supreme Court clearly indicate that the said Court never intended that notwithstanding the decision of the High Court declaring a part of the provisions of vesting as ultra vires the Constitution, the State would nevertheless be free to proceed with the process of vesting during the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court and that is why status quo as regards possession had been maintained and even, the State has been restrained from creating any "third party interest" in the lands in question. 18. At this stage it will be profitable to refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Dilip Prahlad Namade reported in AIR 2004 SC 2950 where the Court pointed out that there was no scope of laying down a law at the interlocu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich had been disposed of by the said order of the appellate authority would be restored and it can be said to be pending before the appellate authority after the quashing of the order of the appellate authority. The same cannot be said with regard to an order staying the operation of the order of the appellate authority because in spite of the said order, the order of the appellate authority continues to exist in law and so long as it exists, it cannot be said that the appeal which has been disposed of by the said order has not been disposed of and is still pending. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the passing of the interim order dated February 21, 1991 by the Delhi High Court staying the operation of the order of the appellate authority dated January 7, 1991 does not have the effect of reviving the appeal which had been dismissed by the appellate authority by its order dated January 7, 1991 and it cannot be said that after February 21, 1991, the said appeal stood revived and was pending before the appellate authority. 20. Therefore, the effect of the order of stay in a pending appeal before the Apex Court does not amount to "any declaration of law" but is only binding upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
