Kumar Pashupati Nath Mullah (Dead) by L.Rs. v. State of West Bengal

Judgment

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIR.ISWAMI, J. Gobinda Prosad Pandit, the founder of the Scarsole Raj Estate died in the year 1861 leaving a will. Aller his death in a suit between his widow and certain other claimants regarding the title to the estate it was held that a charge had been created upon the entire estate for the maintenance and seva puja of the family deity and for the performance of certain ~pecified charitable purposes. In 1928 thc appellant, his brother and their father who succeeded to the estate executed an arpannamah in favour of the family deity reiterating the charge created by Gobinda Prosad Pandit. On October 12, 1953 ·the appellant executed a document whereby a half share in a part of the estate was set apart exclusively for the purpose for which the charge biid been created earlier,.and the rest of the property was to be treated as al>Solutely free and absolved from the claims in respect of the reli· gious and charitable purposes.

The appellant appointed himself as the trustee. The West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 came into force on 12·2·1954. Under that Act, the main provisions of which, in so far as they arc relevant for the purposes of thi' appeal, we shall refer to later, the estate vested in the State on 14-4-1955. Subsequently the Act was amended by introducing section 5A therein with retrospective cffeot from 5-5-1953, the date prior to that on which the bill, . which later became the West Bengal fatales Acquisition Act, was published in the Gazette. After an enquiry the Settlement Officer held that the document executed by the appellant on Octobor 12, 1953 was not bona fide. The appeal against thb decision to the Special Judge failed and so also a petition filed befvre the High Court under Art. 227 of the Co'nstitution. This appeal ha' been filed in pursuance of the special leave granted by this Court. We shall now set torth the provisions of the Act in brief : Under s.

4(1) of the Act a notification may be issued by the State Government that all estates and the rights of every intermediary in each such estate shall vest in the State free from all incumbranccs . Under s. 5(1) upon the publication of such a notification the estates and the rights of intermediaries in the estates shall vest in the State fret frC1m all it1eumbrances. It may bo stated even at thil stage that the appellant is an intermediary. Under s. SA the State Government 6-M45Sup.C.I.{7S 11974) 3 S.C.R. may enquire into any case of transfer of any land by an intermediary made botween the 5th day of May, 1953 and the date of vesting, if in its opinion there are prima facie reasons for believing that such transfer was not bona fide, and if after such an enquiry the State Government finds that such tramfer was not bona fide, it shall make an. order to that effect and thereupon the transfer shall stand cancdled as from the date on which it was made or purported to have been made:

Against an order passed by the State Government an appeal lies to a Special . Judge. Sub-section (7) of this s.ction lays down that a transfer shall be held to be not bona fide if it was made principally or partially With the object of increasing the amourit of land which a person may retain,. or principally or partially with the object of increasing the amount of compensaJion payable. 'Transfer' means a transfer by sale, mortgage, lease, exchange or gift. Under section 6 an intermediary is entitled to retain various categories of land. of which it is only mcessary to refer to the category mention.id in $ection 6(1)

(i) which reads : '_'where the intermediary is a corporation or an institution established exclusively for a religious or a charitable purpose or both, or is a person holding under a trust or an endowment or other legal obligation exclusively for a·purpose which is charitable or religious or both-land held in khas by such corporation or institution, or person, for such purpose including land held by any person, not being a tenant, by leave or license of such corporation or institution or person;" Section 16 provides for the calculation of the gross income and the .net income· of an interm>_diary. Among. the items which have to be deducted from the gro;s income in order to.arrive at the net income is the one under section 16(1) (b) (vi) which reads as follows :

"any sum payable by such intermediary out of the income . of an estate or interest which has vested iii the State under section 5, to a corporation or an institution established exclusively for a religious or a charitable purpose or both, or to a person holding under a .. trust or an endowment or other legal obligation exclusively for a purpne which is charitable or religious or both, where such estate or interest wa~ [held partly for a religious or charitable purpose and partly for a purpose other than religious · or charitable." Section 17 provides for the determination of the amount of compensation payable to intermediaries. · . The Settlement Officer held that "a charitable trust is ex-hypothesi a voluntary transfer by way of gift and it has been held that one of the various modes of giving property for religious purpose is to give it to the . trustees" and therefore it was a transfer. Before the .

Special Judg! it wa> argued tli1t th!re was no tran>fer at all inasmuch as it was not an act of conveying the property from one living person to another, and that it was not at all a gift since there was no transfer • 1 1 >..-. P. N-: MULLAH v. WEST BENGAL (Alagiriswami, J.) The. learned Special Judge rejected that contention. Similar ~rguments were repeated before the High Court· which also -rejected that con· tention. We are of opinion that the High Court as well as the authori~ ties below were right in this conclusion. The definition of the terni 'transfer' does not attract all the definitions given in the Tramfer of Property Act for th~ transactions ~hich are defined as transfers in the Act. If the substance of the transaction by which properties are endowed in favour of a deity is looked into we do not see why it cannot be called a gift. In Champa Bibi v. Panchiram Nahata (AIR 1963 Calcutta 551) a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that 'a transfer of property by dedication to a Hindu deity is a transfer by gift within the meaning of s.

5A(7)(iii) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. As regards the seoond point whether the transfer was bona fide or not the Settlement Officer did not apply his mind to ihe provisions of the Act which lay down what transfers would 0 be held to be not bona fide. He did not consider whether the transfer was made principally or partially with the object of increasing the amount of land which the transferor may retain or increasing the amount of compensation payable to him. He only took into consideration the fact that certain lands were transferred to the appellant's son and his wife and held that ·it was clear from them that the deed was made pnncipally or partially with the object of increasing the amount of land which the appellant could retain, and also with the object of increasing the amount of compensation payable under the Act. He did not go into the facts of the case 'but merely repeated the words of the section.

It is found from that order itself that the total expenditure on the seva and charitable pur- · poses was Rs. 30,000/- and the appellant's share therein would be Rs.15,000/-. It is also found thattheincome of the land_absolutelytrans-. ferred under the deed of October 12, 1953 is Rs. 23,000/-. But for the c execution of the document the appellant would have been in possession of the whole of the estate with only a charge amounting to Rs. 15,000/-. As a re~ult of the document land yielding a larger income was trans- : ferred absolutely to the deity. The Settlement Officer should, therefore, have given his reasons as to how he arrived at the conclusion that the transfer would enable the appellant to. retain a larger extent of land or entitle him to a larger amount of compensation.

The Special Judge merely considered that it was difficult to understand how the appellant who inherited the moiety share of the estate subject to the charge was legally competent to free a portion of the estate from the charge and confine the charge to only a portion of the estate. But that does not affect the question whether the transfer was bona fide in terms of the [19741 3; S.C;& Act. He took the view that the Act considered alongwith the fact that the appellant transferred his interest in the remaining portion of the estate to his son and wife clearly established want of bona fides on the part of the appellant, and that it was done to defeat the purpose of legislation. It would be noticed that he has also not gone into the question whether the impugned transaction enables the appellant to retain a larger extent of land or claim a larger amount of compensation. The High Court did not go into this question at all. 8.

We do not consider that the facts of this case raise any question under section 6(1) (i) at all. That can arise only with regard to the situation as it existed before the execution of the impugned documen.t and under the unamended Act. The earlier document of 1928 as well as.the prior decree would not bring the lands under this section at all, as was held by this Co11rt in Faz/Ill Rabbi Pradhan v. State of West Bengal [1965] 3 SCR. 307. In the result this appeal is allowed. The High Court will dispose of the matte( a fresh in accordance ·with law. There will be no order as to costs. V. P. S. AppeaJ allowed •.