TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the Tribunal and directed the B.L. L.R.O concerned to correct the record-of-rights strictly in accordance with the decree passed in favour of the writ petitioner/his predecessor. The record must be corrected within one month from the date of communication of this order. 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 the parties to the said proceedings and at the same time, such interim order does not destroy the binding effect of the judgment of the High Court as a precedent because while granting the interim order, the Apex Court had no occasion to lay down any proposition of law inconsistent with the one declared by the High Court which is impugned. We, therefore, find substance in the contention of the writ petitioner that a Division Bench of this Court having declared the provision contained in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act regarding vesting without making any lawful provision for compensation for such vesting in the Act as ultra vires the Constitution of India, the State cannot be permitted to proceed with the said provision of vesting against the petitioner so l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 arising out of entry in the record-of-rights stands rebutted. The law is equally settled that a party, after suffering a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction, cannot ignore such decree without challenging such decree before appropriate forum at the appropriate time. In the case before us, the State of West Bengal having accepted the decree passed by the Civil Court, the same has attained finality and therefore, a Tribunal constituted under West Bengal Land Reforms and T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 attained finality by lapse of time, it cannot refuse to correct the record-of-rights in tune with the decree passed by the Civil Court. 9. We have already indicated that the Tribunal constituted under the provision of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, is not vested with any authority to declare that a decree passed by a Civil Court is without jurisdiction and, therefore, in the case before us, the Tribunal below acted without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 that another Bench in a different matter being special leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1416 of 1997 passed an interim order directing that status quo regarding possession on the spot should be maintained by both sides in connection with the members of the petitioner Sangha who were before the High Court in the writ petition out of which the said proceedings arose. By further order dated April 17, 2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 interlocutory stage: Coming to the plea regarding long passage of time it is to be noted that the two orders passed by this Court in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1136/2002 and 434/2003 referred to above do not lay down any principle of law of invariable nature to be universally applied. Furthermore, disposal of SLP against a judgment of the High Court does not mean that the said judgment is affirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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 the parties to the said proceedings and at the same time, such interim order does not destroy the binding effect of the judgment of the High Court as a precedent because while granting the interim order, the Apex Court had no occasion to lay down any proposition of law inconsistent with the one declared by the High Court which is impugned. 21. We, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
