Party Claiming Benefit Under State's Welfare Scheme Cannot Challenge Its Restrictions Or Act To The Detriment Of Other Beneficiaries: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has held that a party who claims the benefit of the various welfare schemes undertaken by the state cannot complain about the restrictions of such policies and act to the detriment of other beneficiaries under such schemes.

In this case, the court was dealing with a squatter who was a beneficiary of a housing scheme by the state, claiming more land than was allowed to be allotted under the said scheme.

Justice Aniruddha Roy held: To uphold the object of the said welfare scheme when the petitioner takes the benefit and advantage under the said scheme to the extent she is eligible on the one hand, on the other hand the petitioner cannot be permitted to act to the detrimentof the other beneficiaries under the scheme beyond her eligibility.

 The petitioner claims the land under the Welfare Policy of the State. Therefore, when the question of restrictions imposed under the policy is also required to be applied, the petitioner cannot challenge the application of such restrictions. The policy has to be read and applied as a whole. The petitioner, thus, shall have to accept the policy as a whole and not in a piecemeal, he added.

Background

The petitioner claimed to be the sole squatter at premises no.2/192, Neli Nagar Colony,PO.Haltu, Police Station- Garfa, Kolkata- 700078 (for short, the land). Petitioner has settled at the said land and built a temporary structure. Since 1947, the deceased husband of the petitioner and the petitioner were and is in possession of the land under the Refugee Rehabilitation Programme of India.

The land was mutated in the settlement record of the State in the name of the petitioner subsequent to the demise of her husband.

The State authority had surveyed the area and measured the same in respect of each of the occupant family at the locale and then numbered the plots as enumerated plots. The petitioner was accordingly intimated by communication dated July 19, 1976 that she was eligible for regularization of land.)

Petitioner states that she was in actual occupation of a part of the land (13 decimals) and the balance (2 decimals) was illegally occupied by a trespasser.

In order to evict the said trespassers from the said 2 decimals of land and to recover possession of the same, the petitioner filed a civil suit. In the civil suit, the Refugee Rehabilitation Commissioner of Refugee Relief Rehabilitation Directorate of the State was a party defendant. 

The respondent authorities purported to record the measurement of the land, which the petitioner claimed was totally wrong, perverse and baseless. The petitioner objected to the said erroneous finding through a legal notice.

Several stages of litigation followed leading to a survey, followed by the construction of a boundary wall by the petitioner as well.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the deceased husband of the petitioner since about 1947 had been residing at the land and thereafter, the petitioner has been residing, and her settled possession on the land was confirmed by the RR Department.

The plaint filed in the said civil suit by the petitioner where the RR Department was a party clearly shows that the petitioner claimed that she was in possession of 15 decimal of land and finally, the decree was passed in the said civil suit when the Jurisdictional Civil Court found and made a declaration that the writ petitioner/plaintiff was in possession of 15 decimals of land and out of that 2 decimals was encroached upon by the defendant no.1 to 3.

It was also found that the plaintiff writ petitioner had proved her possession over the entire 15 decimals of land, but she had not been able to prove her title over the same.

Finally, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/writ petitioner for recovery of possession in respect of the land occupied by the defendant no.1 to 3 therein, and the defendant no.1 to 3 was directed to quit and vacate the land under their possession.

Counsel submitted that the Rehabilitation Scheme to rehabilitate the squatters is a welfare scheme propounded by the State to provide shelter. For implementation of such scheme land had been acquired.

Similarly, the land on which the petitioner has been uninterrupted possession had also been acquired by the State for the rehabilitation of the squatters. The rehabilitation scheme is under operation under the guidelines framed by the Union Government. The essential criteria to obtain a Free Hold Title on a land under the said rehabilitation scheme is that a squatter must be in uninterrupted and continuous possession of the land.

Counsel appearing for the State submits that the authority is ready and willing to execute the Free Hold Title Deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of 3 Cottah 11 Chittakof land. He submits that the State admits that the petitioner is in possession of the said land.

State Counsel further submits that by virtue of said policy, the State cannot execute the Free Hold Title Deed in favour of the squatters for more than 5 Cottahs of land, even though it is found that the squatter is in occupation of more than 5 cottah of land.

Court's Analysis

After considering the contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, the Court noted that the facts of the case would show that the possession and occupation of the petitioner on plot no. E-192 was confirmed and admitted by the State Authority with a discrepant, conflicting and incompatible finding with regard to the measurement of land in occupation of the petitioner.

The question then was, to what extent of the measurement of land shall be conveyed in favour of the petitioner by the State upon execution of Free Hold Title Deed.

To determine this, the court considered the decree passed by the jurisdictional Civil Court dated January 16, 2017, which had directed the respondents to vacate the portion of the petitioner's land they had trespassed.

Regarding the policy of the state to accord land to squatters, the court noted that the solitary stand of the State in its affidavit in opposition is that beyond 5 cottahs of Home Stead Land in a squatter colony, no land can be conveyed to a family, even if, a squatter family is in possession and occupation of a land which is more than and beyond 5 cottahs. The court said:

On a meaningful reading of the said 1987 scheme...this Court is of the firm and considered view that, this was a welfare scheme propounded by the welfare State to provide shelter to the homeless squatters,who were compelled to encroach the Government land for their shelter as an unauthorised occupiers. Such welfare and beneficial scheme has to be read, understood and also to be construed in a most liberal manner and as far as possible in favour of the beneficiary of the scheme.

The said Scheme was propounded by the State as a welfare scheme to provide shelter to the squatters, subject to restriction on the ceiling limit of 5 Cottahsof Home Stead Land for a family at a squatter colony. The underlying object of such welfare scheme is to accommodate as many as squatters to provide them shelter with the Home Stead Land by executing Free Hold Title Deed in their favour. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim any further land beyond 5 Cottahs of Home Stead Land, it added.

Accordingly, the plea was allowed.

Case: Smt. ParulbalaMondal Vs. The State of West Bengal &Ors

Case No: WPA 22948/2024

Click here to read order