Summary
A registered gift deed of 1967, recorded in the revenue records in 1969, could not be branded a benami transaction two decades later merely because a 1989 amendment to the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was given retrospective effect. The Supreme Court held the High Court erred in remitting the ceiling proceedings for fresh examination, since no two views were possible on the undisputed facts, and restored the Tribunal's order setting aside the Revenue Officer's redetermination of surplus land.
Issues
- Whether a registered gift deed executed in 1967 by the original landholder in favour of his sons and daughters could be treated as a benami transaction, in surplus-land proceedings reopened under Section 14T(5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, on the strength of an amendment made two decades later with retrospective effect.
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Tribunal's order and remitting the matter to the Revenue Officer for fresh examination.
Provisions considered
- Section 14T(3) read with Sections 14M and 14S, West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955These were the provisions under which, after the 2nd and 3rd amendments to the Act, proceedings were initiated to determine the surplus land of the late landholder and vest it in the State. The Court records this procedural background without construing the text of the provisions. (¶ 4)
- Section 14T(5) read with Section 14T(8) and (9), West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955Under these provisions the Revenue Officer, during the pendency of the ceiling proceedings, examined whether the 1967 gift deed was benami. The State argued that Section 14T(5), being retrospective, empowered the Revenue Officer to reopen old matters suo motu. The Court did not decide the vires or scope of the power; it held that on the undisputed facts the gift could not be treated as benami at all. (¶¶ 4, 9, 13, 14)
Held
- A registered gift deed executed in 1967 and given effect to in the revenue records in 1969 cannot be held to be a benami transaction by reference to an amendment of the 1955 Act that came into force in 1989. No landholder could have anticipated in 1967 that land would have to be distributed among family members to avoid its being declared surplus at a later date, and the genuineness of such a registered document could not be put in question two decades later only because a retrospective amendment had since been made. (¶¶ 11, 13, 14)
- The surrounding facts negated any inference of benami: even after gifting part of the holding to his children, the donor retained a substantial portion, of which 8.80 acres was declared surplus and vested in the State. Had the gift been a device to defeat the ceiling, he could have distributed his entire holding and saved every inch of land. (¶¶ 12, 15)
- Where no two opinions could be formed on the facts, the High Court erred in setting aside the Tribunal's order and remitting the case to the Revenue Officer for examination afresh. The prima facie view expressed by the High Court that the gift seemed to be benami was erroneous on the face of it. (¶¶ 11, 16)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's order dated 08.09.2021 in W.P.L.R.T. No. 31 of 2020 set aside; the Tribunal's order dated 11.01.2019 in Original Application No. 452 of 2008 restored. Pending applications disposed of. The Court noted that the figures in the pleadings contain apparent errors at several places.