17.03.2025 Court no. 16 Item 27 MNS SA No. 98 of 2024 Bidhan Nandi -vs- Gautom Nandi Mr. Anit Kumar Rakshit, Mr. Subham Rakshit …… for the appellant. 1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred against a judgment of affirmance whereby both the courts below dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration of title and ancillary relief. 2. The plaintiff/respondent contends that an allotment was made in respect of a refugee rehabilitation property in the name of the father of the plaintiff/appellant. 3. It is contended that such allotments, by the very nature, are allotted to one of the members of the family in the capacity of constructive trustee for the benefit of all the other members of the family. 4. It is submitted that although the plaintiff/appellant was not born at the time when the allotment was made, by virtue of being the son of his father, that is a member of the family of the allottee, title to the property also devolved on the appellant. It is contended that while 2 dismissing the suit, both the courts below overlooked such component of the matter. 5. We find from a composite reading of the judgments and decrees of both the courts below that the courts below concurrently found that the allotment, although in the capacity of constructive trustee, was made for the benefit of all the members of the family on record. Since the appellant’s name was not in the records as he was not born at the time of allotment, it was held by the courts below that the appellant is not entitled to a right in the property. 6. Leaned counsel places reliance on a Government Order, bearing Government Order No. 3492/17-Rehab/2P-82/79 dated April 23, 1981 issued by the Government of West Bengal through its Deputy Secretary. 7. As per the said Government Order, as a measure of rehabilitation of displaced families, homestead plot were being allotted to colonies or squatting in approved squatters colonies were being regularized with the clear intention that the beneficiaries of the allotment would be all the members of the family “on record” though the allotment order was issued in the name of one of the family members as Karta or defacto head of the family. 3 8. It is also stated in the said Circular that the conveyance deeds leasehold or free-hold as may be approved from time to time, shall have to be executed by all the persons who are shown as comprising of the family his legal heirs if any was dead, if the actual allotment order was not in favour of a common propositors or if there was not common propositor among the persons whose names were recorded in the allotment register as comprising the family. In cases where deeds have already been executed and registered in the name of one member excluding the other members of the family, the rehabilitation of the other members of the family shall also be deemed to be covered by the allotment thought it was made to one member of the family as Karta or de facto head of the family. 9. In such cases, the Government Order further provides the allotment would be in the nature of constructive trustee for the other member of the family. He would be found in a fiduciary character to protect the interest of the other members of the family as he would be well aware of the fact that the allotment to him was made for the rehabilitation of all the members of the family including the allottee and he held the 4 allotment for the benefit of all the member of the family “on record”. 10. The repeated use of the expression “on record” goes on to show that the allotment did not create a right of succession or inheritance in terms of the personal laws. 11. What the Government Order and the Policy of the Government at that juncture intended was that all the refugee persons who were squatting on properties were entitled to such allotment for the purpose of convenience, the allotment or deed was executed in favour of one of the family members who would held on behalf of all the other persons who were his family members at that point of time. 12. The use of the expression “family, who might have been the eldest brother or else as per composition of the family as recorded in the name of allotment of the plots” in the opening paragraph of the Government Order goes on to show that not necessarily does the principal allottee have to be the father or the actual Karta of the family but he might sell the elder brother or as per the composition of the recorded family any other person in the family. 13. Thus the concept of Hindu Undivided Family and in such context “Karta” is not applicable to 5 an allotment under the Refugee Rehabilitation Scheme. 14. Hence, the construction, which was given to the said Government Order and the Policy of the Government by both the courts below was one of the plausible interpretations which could be lent to the same. 15. Thus, since it is well-settled that the Second Appellate Court shall not substitute its one view merely because another view is possible and in the teeth of the concurrent findings of both the courts below independently to the effect that the plaintiff/appellant not being a recorded family member at the juncture of allotment is not entitled to any share in the property, cannot be interfered with in the Second Appeal. 16. In such view of the matter, we find that there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. 17. Accordingly, SA No. 98 of 2024 is dismissed without any order as to costs under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Uday Kumar, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)