Skip to content

State of West Bengal Vs. Sudhir Chandra Ghose and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Reported inAIR1976SC2599; (1976)4SCC701; [1977]2SCR71
ActsWest Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 - Sections 2, 4 and 5
AppellantState of West Bengal
RespondentSudhir Chandra Ghose and ors.
.....estates acquisition act, 1953 - whether collective claims of villagers to graze their cattle on estate vested in state under act of 1953 falls within definition of encumbrance - right to graze cattle is restrictive interest falling within scope of section 2 (h) - villagers are 'other person' - inconsequential to say that customary right of grazing cattle is law - even if it is law once it falls within mischief of 'encumbrance' paring down totality of intermediaries' rights section 3 hits it down - state's defence is impregnable - thus customary right to graze is not law. - order 40, rule 1: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] appointment of receiver held, appointment of a receiver pending suit is a matter which is within the discretionary jurisdiction of the court. ordinarily the court..........of the litigation but lost in the high court. the question, shortly put, is whether the vesting of estates in the state under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the west bengal estates acquisition act, 1953 (west bengal act 1 of 1954) (abbreviated for reference hereinafter as the act) extinguishes the right of cattle grazing enjoyed by villagers in the grasslands of such estates on the ground that such right amounts to 'incumbrance' within section 2(h) of the act. the facts : 2. an estate in village vadurerpati madhabpur in the district of hooghly was among those vested in the state on a notification under section 4 of the act, free from all encumbrances as provided in sections 4 and 5. the plaintiffs-respondents are some of the denizens of the said village and, in this representative action, claim.....

V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.

1. This appeal, by special leave, from the judgment of a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court raises a single legal issue with human overtones. The State of West Bengal is the appellant at this the fourth and final deck of the judicial pyramid; having won the case as the 5th defendant at the earlier stages of the litigation but lost in the High Court. The question, shortly put, is whether the vesting of estates in the State under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (West Bengal Act 1 of 1954) (abbreviated for reference hereinafter as the Act) extinguishes the right of cattle grazing enjoyed by villagers in the grasslands of such estates on the ground that such right amounts to 'incumbrance' within Section 2(h) of the Act.

The facts :

2. An estate in village Vadurerpati Madhabpur in the district of Hooghly was among those vested in the State on a notification under Section 4 of the Act, free from all encumbrances as provided in Sections 4 and 5. The plaintiffs-respondents are some of the denizens of the said village and, in this representative action, claim that the agrarian community there have always enjoyed the right of pasturage over the suit estate and pray for the relief of injunction restraining the 5th defendant-appellant from interfering with the exercise of the right to graze, as enjoyed before. The State, however, denies the survival of such a right even if it did exist on the score that the fatal impact of Section 5 has terminated all incumbrances on the estate and the right to graze cattle belonging to the villagers is but an 'incumbrance' as defined in Section 2(h) of the Act. Thus the bone of contention between the parties is whether the collective claim of the villagers to graze their cattle on an. estate vested in the State under the Act falls within the definition of 'incumbrance'. If it does, the suit deserves to be dismissed but, if it does not, the High Court's view is correct and the case has to be sent back for consideration on the merits. We may mention, for completeness' sake, that defendants 1 to 4 are persons in whom the estate has been allegedly settled by the State, although this position is not clear or perhaps is denied by the State itself.

3. The issue, in a nut-shell, is as to what is an 'incumbrance'. But this question, in the light of the definition which we will presently reproduce resolves itself into two issues which will be self-evident as we read the provision:

2. In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-

x x x x x (h) 'incumbrance' in relation to estates and rights of intermediaries therein does not include the rights of a raiyat or of an under raiyat or of a non-agricultural tenant, but shall, except in the case of land allowed to be retained by an intermediary under the provisions of Section 6, include all rights or interests of whatever nature, belonging to intermediaries or other persons, which relate to lands comprised in estates or to the produce thereof.

And so the two gut questions are:

(i) whether a right to graze cattle in the estate of another falls within the sweep of the comprehensive expression 'all rights or interests of whatever nature': and

(ii) whether the members of a village as a collective, though fluctuating body, are covered by the words 'intermediaries or other persons'.

4. While the two Courts at the ground and first-floor level decided the two points abovementioned in favour of the State, the High Court, after a long and discursive discussion, the labyrinthine course of which need not be traversed by us, reached the conclusion that the right in question was a public right belonging to an unspecified and varying group-not a specific private interest vesting in specified persons-and therefore left untouched by Sections 3 to 5 and uncovered by Section 2(h). Is that view sustainable on a correct construction of the provision?.

5. Putting a literal and teleological construction on the definition of 'incumbrance' we have hardly any doubt that the legislature has used language of the widest amplitude to cast the net wide and to catch all rights and interests whatever be their nature. Indubitably, the right to graze cattle in an estate is a restrictive interest clearly falling within the scope of the provision. Indeed, so designedly limitless an area of rights and interests of whatever nature is included in the special definition of 'incumbrance' for the purposes of the Act, that to deny the familiar rurally enjoyed right of pasturage as covered by it is to defeat, by judicial construction, the legislative intendment. Likewise, there is no substance in the contention that the collective, though uncertain, body of villagers cannot be brought within the expression 'or other persons'. The connotation of those words in the context is 'intermediaries or persons other than intermediaries'. This embraces all persons other than intermediaries and the villagers who seek to exercise the right of grazing over the intermediaries' lands are plainly 'other persons.' There is no warrant for the limited signification imputed to those words by counsel for the respondent when he argues that they refer to particular, definite and known individuals. An unwarranted narrowing of meaning cannot be attributed where there is no contextual compulsion or fulfilment of statutory purpose thereby gained. On the other hand, the great socio-economic objective of the Act argues itself. If it is to be successful as a land reform measure, the precondition is that the estates must vest the intermediaries' entire rights fully-not moth-eaten by carving out many little interests out of the plenary ownership of the State. This intendment is further manifest from Sections 4 and 5 which we set out below along with Section 3:

Section 3. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or in any contract express or implied or in any instrument and notwithstanding any usage or custom to the contrary: x x x x x x

Section 4(1) The State Government may from time to time by notification declare that with effect from the date mentioned in the notification, all estates and the rights of every intermediary in each such estate situated in any district or part of a district specified in the notification, shall vest in the State free from all incumbrances. X X X X X X

Section 5(1) Upon the due publication of a notification under Section 4, on and from the date of vesting-

(a) the estate and the rights of intermediaries in the estates, to which the declaration applies, shall vest in the State free from all incumbrances; in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of this clause, every one of the following rights which may be owned by an intermediary shall vest in the State, namely :- x x x x x x

According to Sections 4 and 5, the vesting shall be 'free from all incumbrances'. In short, from the perspective of land-reform objectives, a spacious meaning is derived by the definition in Section 2(h). Ordinarily, the Court cannot cut down the definitional amplitude given in the statute and we see no valid reason for departing from this golden rule.

6. The end product of this discussion is that the appeal must be allowed and the suit dismissed. Even so, we have been taken on a conducted tour by counsel on both sides more or less covering and controverting the points which have appealed to the High Court.

7. Shri Ghose, for the respondent, pressed before us a contention based on rural economics which has considerable force in a general way, but has none from the legal angle. India lives in her villages-not in her cities. This truth has been highlighted by the Father of the Nation, but insufficiently remembered by our law-makers. The agrarian community, with a cattle economy, rates high in the agrestic scheme the right of pasturage and so it is a human problem for the villagers and their very life if the State snatches the valuable right of pasturage which makes the village economy viable, in the name of estate abolition, without providing alternative village commons. While we are moved by this submission and feel that this is an unintended consequence of comprehensive vesting of estates in the State, we have only to observe that the State, in our expectation, should, mindful of its welfare obligation, consider this facet of the problem and try to provide grazing grounds in villages where the impact of the Act has deprived the community of the right of pasturage. Even if the consequence a abolition of intermediary rights leads to a baneful by product from the economic point of view, we, as Judges, are functionally committed to construction of the statute in the terms the legislature has cast it.

8. In this context our non-legal reaction to the loss of grazing rights by the villagers is reinforced by the observations of Sarada Charan Mitra in his Tagore Law Lectures, 1895, on the Land Law of Bengal. He observed at page 495 (II Edition):

Pasturage is, in the large majority of cases in this country, public, in the sense that they belong to or are capable of being used by a community or classes of individuals in a village. Such rights are necessary for the preservation of society.


To an agricultural population, pasture land is of the utmost importance and there is seldom a village in Bengal which has not a large piece of land attached to it for the grazing of cattle belonging to its inhabitants.

The High Court judgment comments:

'He (Justice Sarada Charan Mitra) then refers to Verse 237, Chapter VIII in Manu and also refers to Vajnavalkya. Hence such customary right has been recognised in India from very early times.' Our conclusion cannot therefore be deflected by the unfortunate deprivation, especially because we part with this judgment hopefully, counsel for the appellant having assured the Court that these observations will be communicated to his client.

9. This simplistic disposal of the disputed points may not be fair to the High Court, especially because the learned Judge has, in an avoidably erudite survey of Indian and English authorities considered two vital issues. He has discussed at some length the plurality of legal issues : What is the nature, in terms of well known interests or rights in or over property, of the right of pasturage Is it an easement under the Indian Easements Act or the Indian Limitation Act Is it profit a prendre and, if so, does it become a right or interest within Section 2(h) of the Act Can an easement or right of common pasturage be claimed by a fluctuating body of persons-the villagers Is such a customary right recognised in Indian Law The learned Judge has followed up the discussion on these points with a further elaborate examination of one other principal issue and two subsidiary points which may be expressed in his own words:

The question is whether customary right 'enjoyed' by the villagers is a right belonging to other persons relating to the land comprised in the estate or to the produce thereof. This leads to the consideration of two matters : (a) whether the villagers are other persons within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Estates Acquisition Act; and (b) whether such customary right 'belongs' to the villagers or to any individual in the village.

We have been taken on a lengthy tour (as we have already mentioned) of these areas of law by counsel on both sides but we do not think it necessary to cover them in this judgment at any length. The conclusion of the learned Judge is that a grazing right or right of pasturage subject to the local requirements of a valid custom, is local law in India. English and Indian decisions and other text book citations have been referred to by the High Court and read before us, but whether such a customary right is law or not it cannot affect the question before us for the simple reason that Section 3 of the Act expressly says that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law.....and notwithstanding any usage or custom to the contrary'. Undoubtedly, the plenary vesting of the entire rights of the intermediary under Sections 4 and 5 is cut down by a customary right which reduces the ambit of the intermediary right and therefore is contrary to the provisions of Section 5. Moreover, when Sections 4 and 5 declare unmincingly that the vesting shall be free from all incumbrances, a customary right of grazing which clearly is an incumbrance runs counter to this clause, Certainly the definition of 'incumbrance' cannot take in a right or interest unless it is in favour of intermediaries or other persons. The learned Judge has considered whether villagers constitute a corporation or person, whether fishermen in a body living in a village can be said to be persons. He has also reasoned that since no compensation is paid by the State under the Act for the taking of the customary rights 'such provision for vesting would be void under the Constitution'. Sections 161,183 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and Sections 2(p), 5(aa) and 6(h) have all been considered in a learned chain of reasoning. Reliance has also been placed on rulings and text books. As earlier stated, we are disinclined to delve into the details of this discussion.

10. The villagers are clearly 'other persons' and none of the rulings cited before us or referred to by the learned Judge has considered this point, especially in the contest of the extremely wide language used in Section 2(h) of the Act. It is inconsequential to say that the customary right is law. Equally unhelpful is the finding that the right to graze vested in villagers is a public or quasi-public right Even if it is once it falls within the definition of 'incumbrance' paring down the totality of intermediaries' rights, Section 3 hits it down.

11. The conclusion is irresistible that the State's defence is impregnable. The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed and the suit dismissed-which we do directing the parties to bear their costs throughout.

12. Once again we hark back to the human factor of taking away an invaluable right of humble villagers viz., the right of pasturage and feel confident that a Welfare State, deeply concerned with preservation of village economy, will not hesitate to provide fresh pastures for the preservation of agrestic life and agricultural prosperity.

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //