LAKSHMIMONI DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1987-7-23
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 08,1987

LAKSHMIMONI DAS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

A.G. V. LAKWOOD [REFERRED TO]
GUARDIANS OF THE POOR OF THE WEST DUBY UNION V. THE METROPOLITAN LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
BURMA OIL COMPANY V. LORD ADVOCATE [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY GENERAL V. HRH PRINCES EARNEST AUGUSTUS OF HANOVER [REFERRED TO]
SEAFORD COURT ESTATE LIMITED V. ASHER [REFERRED TO]
KHIRODAMOYEE V. ASUTHOSH ROY AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
GYAN SINGH V,STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV COKE MANUFACTURING COMPANY V. BHARAT COKING COAL [REFERRED TO]
MONMATHA NATH MUKHERJEE V. SMT. BANARASI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
PURUSHOTTAM DAS MURAL V. HARINDRA KRISHNA MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
OGLA TELLIS AND ORS. V. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
ANNAPURNA SEAL V. DULTTIN COWRIE [REFERRED TO]
GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH V. HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS [REFERRED TO]
KHARAK SINGH V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. V. T.M.PETER C ORS. [REFERRED TO]
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY V. STATE OF NEBRASKA,U.S. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [REFERRED TO]
CHICAGO,BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY V. CITY OF CHICAGO [REFERRED TO]
JNANAPADA V. CENTRAL PROVINCIAL SYNDICATE LTD. [REFERRED TO]
MURAKA PROPERTIES V,BEHARI LAL MURAKA [REFERRED TO]
CHARANJIT LAL CHOWDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. UNITED MOTORS INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
NARAIN SWADESHI WEAVING MILLS VS. COMMR OF EXCESS PROFITS TAX [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. BALDEO PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. SECRETARY BOARD OF REVENUE TRIVANDRUM [REFERRED TO]
P VAJRAVELU MUDALIAR MOST REV DR L MATHIAS VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR FOR LAND ACQUISITION WEST MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MYSORE VS. P NARASINGA RAO [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMM ITTEE AMRITSAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
HARAKCHAND RATANCHAND BANTHIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KANAIYALAL MANEKLAL CHINAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
BAI CHANCHAL VS. SYED JALALUDDIN+ [REFERRED TO]
K A ABBAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. M RAYAPPA GOUNDER [REFERRED TO]
BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY THE HINDUSTAN TIMES LIMITED INDIAN EXPRESS MADURAI PRIVATE LIMITED G NARASIMHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. VITHAL RAO [REFERRED TO]
HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU SHRI RAGHUNATH RAO GANPAT RAO N H NAWAB MOHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ALI KHAN SHETHIA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LIMITED THE ORIENTAL GOAL GO LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. KHAN CHAND: RAM CHANDER JAGDISH CHANDER [REFERRED TO]
B BANERJEE KAMAL LAL GHOSAL VS. ANITA PAN:ENA DUTTA [REFERRED TO]
GOBIND VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
I N SAKSENA R D DOONGAJI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. RANGANATHA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
POLESTAR ELECTRONIC PRIVATE LIMITED UNION OF INDIA DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO LIMITED BLUE STAR LIMITED DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO LIMITED DEEPAK OIL MILLS DEEPAK OIL MILLS TRADING ENGINEERS DEEPAK OIL MILLS KRISHAN VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER SALES TAX: J K SYNTHETICS LTD [REFERRED TO]
MINERVA MILLS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
H D VORA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
D CAWASJI AND CO MYSORE VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
SAJJAN MILLS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX M P BHOPAL [REFERRED TO]
HARBANS LAL VS. JAGMOHAN SARAN [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH AMICHAND SHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
MUST HASNEAR KHATUN VS. REVENUE OFFICER MIDNAPORE [REFERRED TO]
SK BAFATULLA MUKHTEAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ASITENDRA NATH MITTER [REFERRED TO]
RAMENDRA NATH NANDI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
TARA DUTTA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
BANKU BEHARI DUTT VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
JATADHARI DAW AND GRANDSONS VS. RADHA DEBI [REFERRED TO]
SADRUDDIN SULEMAN JHAVERI VS. J H PATWARDHAN [REFERRED TO]
BASANTIBAI FAKIRCHAND KHETAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL VS. PROVINCE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSAL TRADING CO. VS. PRAFULLA KUMAR SARKAR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

NEMAI CHANDRA KUMAR (D) THR. LRS VS. MANI SQUARE LTD [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-91] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SATTER VS. SAHANI BIBI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(CAL)-1989-5-72] [REFERRED TO]
AMALA PALIT VS. RATNA BOSE [LAWS(CAL)-2014-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGVATACHARYA NARAYANCHARYA PUBLIC TRUST VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2001-2-26] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD VS. HOWRAH MOTOR COMPANY LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2011-4-67] [REFERRED TO]
SWAPNA GHOSH VS. DILIP KUMAR DEY [LAWS(CAL)-1995-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
KOLAY PROPERTIES P LTD VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2012-4-63] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. AARVEE FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2013-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
SAHADEV SARKAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1990-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
SANTI DEVI MITTAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2003-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE SHREE ISWAR SATYANARAYANJEE VS. SHREE RANI SATI JUTE PVT. LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2017-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHI ENCLAVES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-5-85] [REFERRED TO]
ANINDITA CHOWDHURY VS. GOURI SHANKAR PAL [LAWS(CAL)-2024-2-127] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL CH PAUL VS. AMALA MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-1988-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
SRI LALIT KUMAR BAGLA & ORS. VS. RAJIV KUMAR PODDER & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-5-219] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. VS. HOWRAH MOTOR COMPANY LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2013-4-118] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL KUMAR MITRA VS. ARUN KUMAR CHATTERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2014-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAMDAS BANSAL VS. KHARAG SINGH BAID [LAWS(SC)-2012-1-44] [REFERRED TO]
NEMAI CHANDRA KUMAR AND ORS. VS. MANI SQUARE LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-2-109] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT KUMAR BAGLA AND ORS. VS. RAJIV KUMAR PODDAR AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-9-45] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD VS. HOWRAH MOTOR COMPANY LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2013-4-26] [REFERRED TO]
BINA ROY VS. BASANTI BHATTACHARYA [LAWS(CAL)-2008-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
HOOGHLY BUILDING AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2024-7-29] [REFERRED TO]
SYED FATEYAB ALI MEERZA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1990-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
INDIA CITY PROPERTIES LIMITED VS. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2009-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
ALOKE KR. SIRKAR VS. GANAPATI VENKEETA KRISHNAN [LAWS(CAL)-2004-7-85] [REFERRED TO]
QUCXOVA SINAL CUNDO VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1997-6-52] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

G.N.Ray, J. - (1.)This Rule namely C R. No. 11382(W) of 1982 has been heard analogously with other Civil; Rules because common questions of law are involved in all these cases, Civil Rule No. 1382 (W) of 1982 and a number of other writ cases challenging the vires of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. On 12th December, 1985, the said Division Bench was pleased to make a reference to the Special Bench by the following order:-
"These group of writ petitions challenge the vires of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981. On the question of applicability of the Act to certain kinds of land, it may become necessary to reconsider a Division Bench decision of this Court in Appeal No. 239 of 1978 (Jatadhari Daw & Grandsons v. Smt. Radha Debi & Anr.) pronounced on September 6, 1985. We deem it desirable that these group of writ petitions may properly engage the attention of the Special Division Bench. Other questions raised in these writ petitions relate to substantial questions of law of general importance. In the circumstances, the entire cases may be referred to the Special Division Bench. Let the papers be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary orders."

(2.)As the said Rules have been heard analogously, the judgment passed in Civil Rule No. 11382(&) of 1982 will form the basis of the judgment of all the writ cases heard analogously and the special facts concerning some of the writ proceedings will be mentioned whenever reference to such special facts will be necessary for the disposal of such Rules.
(3.)Mr. S. Pal, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in C. R. No. 11382(W) of 1982 has made the principal argument because Civil Rule No. 11382(W) of 1982 was taken up first for hearing and the learned counsels appearing in other matters have indicated the special facts concerning their cases and have, only supplemented the main argument advanced by Mr. Pal on points which, according to the learned counsels, require to be highlighted specifically. As Mr. Pal has made the principal argument, we intend to refer to his arguments in some detail, The arguments of other learned counsels for the petitioners will be referred if and when necessary.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.