Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya & The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya FMA No. 356 of 2018 The District Magistrate & Collector, Howrah and Ors. Vs. Shanti Devi Jaiswal, since deceased, represented by her heirs and legal representatives Sri Pradip Jaiswal and Ors. For the appellants : Mr. Supratim Dhar, Ld. Snr. Adv. Ms. Amritalal Chatterjee, Adv. For the respondents : Ms. Reshmi Ghosh, Adv. For the added respondent no. 12 : Mr. Jaharlal De, Ld. AGP, Ms. Debarati Sen (Bose), Adv. For the Howrah Zilla Parishad : Ms. Mekhla Sinha, Adv. For the alleged encroacher : Mr. Kiron Sk., Adv. Heard on : November 27, 2025. Judgment on : November 27, 2025. 2 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.: 1. The present challenge has been preferred on behalf of the State authorities against a judgment dated March 7, 2014 passed in WP 8477 (W) of 2003. 2. At the outset, learned Senior counsel appearing for the State/appellants submits that the appellants would confine their arguments to the caustic remarks made by the learned Single Judge against the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (B.L. & L.R.O.) and the penal action taken against her to the extent that cost of Rs.10,000/- was directed to be paid by the said B.L. & L.R.O. which was to be deducted from her salary and the service book of the B.L. & L.R.O. was directed to record such punishment. 3. Learned senior counsel contends that the said caustic remarks in the impugned judgment were made on the premise of two affidavits filed by the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. in connection with the writ petition. 4. In the first such affidavit, affirmed on August 13, 2013, the B.L. & L.R.O. had inter alia stated that the writ petitioner, “cleverly knowing the facts that the suit plot 1338 is acquired property 3 and suppressing the facts and misrepresentation, took money from the Bank”. It was further stated, inter alia, that “the writ petitioner admitted in the application that the case land at plot no. 1338 is retained land of Huddut’s members and that their allegations for purchase from the retained land of Huddut’s family having no right of ownership. The deed in question executed in the year 1966 in favour of the writ petitioner is alleged to be void”. 5. The learned Single Judge, being dissatisfied with the said statements, inasmuch as those were not supported by sufficient documents to show that there was actually an acquisition of plot no. 1338, granted another opportunity to the B.L. & L.R.O. to clarify her stand by way of a second (supplementary) affidavit. 6. Such supplementary affidavit was affirmed on February 25, 2014 and filed in court. 7. In the supplementary affidavit, the B.L. & L.R.O. stated, inter alia, that on 29.09.1964 the Executive Engineer, Calcutta Special Road Division, Government of West Bengal sent a notice to the Collector, Howrah regarding land acquisition as per L.A. Case No. 3 (Act- II) of 1963-64 “claiming possession”, 4 inter alia, of plot no. 1338 and that these plots were notified for acquisition of the “Railway Colony case”. 8. The B.L. & L.R.O. further went on to assert in such supplementary affidavit that the right, title and interest of intermediaries in respect of plot no. 1338 were vested to the State in respect of the said lands as per provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. 9. Learned senior counsel arguing for the appellants submits that the B.L. & L.R.O., in view of the documents in her possession, was under the bona fide impression that acquisition has already taken place in respect of several plots including the disputed plot no. 1338. In support of such contention, learned senior counsel places reliance on a letter written by the Executive Engineer, Calcutta Special Road Division on September 29, 1964 to the Collector, Howrah where it was stated that as per the proposal of Land Acquisition Case No. 3 (Act-II) of 1963-64, the said plots may kindly be delivered to the said Division. There is an almost illegible interpolation by hand at the top right hand corner of the said communication which apparently indicates that some authority had stated that a “decision is made” to hand over such possession. 5 10. A reply to the abovementioned letter was annexed to the said first affidavit, which, however, stated that the acquisition of the plots “would not be possible” in favour of the proposed project. 11. It is thus submitted that there was bona fide doubt in the mind of the B.L. & L.R.O. at the first instance as to whether the plots have been acquired. 12. It is further submitted that at the juncture when the supplementary affidavit was subsequently filed, the B.L. & L.R.O. had come to know that the notification under Section 4(1a) of Act-II of 1948 and the award of compensation for plot no. 1338 were not readily traceable in the office of the Special LA (G), Howrah and she wrote as much in the said supplementary affidavit. It was further clarified that the District Magistrate and Collector, Howrah vide Memo no. 1168/LA(G) dated 06.11.2013 wrote a letter to the Senior Divisional Engineer (2), Eastern Railway, DRM, Howrah for information whether plot no. 1338, Mouza- Bally had been acquired and taken over by the Eastern Railways. However, it was also stated in the said affidavit by the B.L. & L.R.O. that no reply 6 had yet been received from the Railway authorities in response thereto. 13. Learned senior counsel also brings to the court’s notice the averment in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit to the extent that the right, title and interest of the intermediaries were vested to the State in respect of the lands including plot no. 1338 as per provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the 1953 Act. However, in the same breath, the B.L. & L.R.O. also stated that subsequently, Khanda Khatians were opened in respect of the said plots in the name of the Hudduts as per provisions of the 1953 Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Such extracts from the Khanda Khatians had also been annexed to the said affidavit. 14. By placing reliance on State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Suburban Agriculture Dairy & Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. reported at 1993 Supp (4) SCC 674, learned senior counsel argues that by default, by operation of the 1953 Act, in particular Sections 4 and 5, the entire plots contemplated under the Act vest in the State. As an exception, certain plots are permitted to be retained within the contemplation of Section 6 of the said Act. 7 15. Thus, proceeding on such premise, it is sought to be explained that the B.L. & L.R.O. had stated in her supplementary affidavit that although at the first instance, the right, title and interest of the intermediaries had vested in the State, subsequently, Khanda Khatians were opened, pursuant to the submission of Form-B by the concerned intermediaries, which was an indicator of certain plots of lands being retained. 16. Thus, it is sought be argued that the factum of retention of the lands was also mentioned in the affidavits. 17. Learned senior counsel also insinuates that the B.L. & L.R.O. was not capable enough to have a thorough knowledge of the nuances of law and as such, the mistakes made in the affidavits were inadvertent. It is further contended that affidavits are generally drawn by advocates and the litigants should not suffer for a misconception of law on the part of counsel. 18. Learned senior counsel cites Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka and Anr. vs. State of Assam and Anr. reported at (1996) 6 SCC 234 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that for dealing with the question of expunction of disparaging remarks against a person or authority whose conduct comes in for 8 consideration before a court of law, the same is to be tested on certain yardsticks: (a) Whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. 19. Learned senior counsel next cites the judgment of State of Maharashtra vs. Public Concern For Governance Trust and Ors., reported at (2007) 3 SCC 587, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the proposition laid down in Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka (supra). 20. The appellants next cite State of U.P. vs. Mohammad Naim reported at AIR 1964 SC 703 where it was observed that the High Court has inherent powers to expunge remarks made by itself or by a lower court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, which view was corroborated in State of Punjab and Anr. vs. Shikha Trading Company reported at (2023) 20 SCC 113. 9 21. Thus, it is submitted that the caustic remarks made against the B.L. & L.R.O. may be expunged and the penal action taken against her in the impugned order may be set aside. 22. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners / private respondents submits that due to the pendency of the appeal, the writ petitioners are suffering inordinately. Even a contempt application had to be preferred by the writ petitioners / private respondents. 23. Upon hearing learned counsel for all the parties, we come to the following conclusions: 24. The premise of the caustic remarks made by the learned Single Judge was the two affidavits filed before the writ court, which are now before us. From the said affidavits, at least from the first one, we find that there was ample reason for the learned Single Judge coming to the conclusion that there might have been an attempt by the concerned B.L. & L.R.O., who affirmed the said affidavits, to mislead the court inasmuch as the alleged acquisition of plot no. 1338 is concerned. 25. For example, in the first affidavit, affirmed on August 13, 2013, the B.L. & L.R.O. categorically asserted that the deed in question executed in the year 1966 is void, on the premise of 10 her further statement that the B.L. & L.R.O., Bally, Jagacha in- charge had mistakenly allowed mutation in the name of Shanti Devi Jaiswal (one of the writ petitioners) for revenue purpose only and the said mutation creates no title and possession in the case land at plot no. 1338 and whereby, “admittedly, the “colony persons” about 500 members were residing, having no nexus with the State respondent authorities”. Those 500 members, it was stated, residing on the plot, were not lawfully settled by the respondents. 26. Again, in paragraph no. 4 of the affidavit, it has been boldly asserted that the writ petitioner, cleverly knowing the facts that the suit plot 1338 “is acquired property” and suppressing facts and misrepresentation, took money from the Bank. Thus, it was categorically given out by the B.L. & L.R.O. that the writ petitioner had made a false statement as to the plot no. 1338 having not been acquired. 27. However, we find from the annexures to the said affidavit itself that the said averment is belied. For example, in the communication dated September 29, 1964, the Executive Engineer of the Calcutta Special Road Division merely wrote to the Collector, Howrah seeking possession of the subject plot 11 being given to the said Executive Engineer, upon which a subsequent letter by the Collector stated that the acquisition of the plots would not be possible. Both the said documents were part of the affidavit itself. 28. Hence, the B.L. & L.R.O. definitely ought to have been much more careful in making her averments in the first affidavit, which were belied by the annexures to the said affidavit itself. 29. In the second, that is, the supplementary affidavit, the B.L. & L.R.O. again reiterated that the right, title and interest of the intermediaries were “vested to the State in respect of the lands as per the provision of Sections 4 and 5 of the 1953 Act”. Although the said statement was sought to be alleviated by the very next sentence to the effect that Khanda Khatians were opened in respect of the said plots in the name of the Hudduts as per provisions of the 1953 Act, fact remains that the rider of the Khanda Khatians being opened is much more vague and do not categorically make out that the concerned plot, that is,, plot no. 1338 was retained by the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners, whereas the earlier part of the statement 12 boldly declares that the right, title and interest of the intermediaries were vested to the State. 30. Although in the rest of the supplementary affidavit, an attempt has been made by the B.L. & L.R.O. to explain away her first affidavit by stating that the award of compensation for plot no. 1338 and the notification under Section 4(1a) leading to the same, were not readily traceable, as also by producing a letter which indicated that an information was sought from the Eastern Railway as to whether the land was acquired, to which no reply was given by the Eastern Railway, there is no categorical averment seeking to withdraw her previous allegation that the plot has not been acquired, in unequivocal terms. 31. Even in the supplementary affidavit, an attempt was made to fudge the averments made in the earlier affidavit by seeking to confuse the court, by making contradictory allegations. For example, even in the first affidavit, in the same breath, the B.L. & L.R.O. asserted that the writ petitioner suppressed the fact that suit plot no. 1338 was an acquired property while on the other hand, categorically admitted that the plot no. 1338 is a retained land of Hudduts family members, which necessarily 13 implies that such retained land would go outside the ambit of the vesting. Again, the B.L. & L.R.O. had annexed documents to her first affidavit which themselves go on to reveal the truth as to there being no conclusive evidence of acquisition. 32. Even in the second affidavit, the B.L. & L.R.O. has not unequivocally admitted her erroneous statements in the first affidavit but sought to resort to the subterfuge of stating that the records were not readily traceable and made a vague remark that no reply had been given by the Railway authorities on a query as to whether the land had actually been acquired, without categorically explaining away her remarks as to the acquisition having taken place in respect of the plot no. 1338. Thus, the element of bona fides is completely missing in both of the said affidavits inasmuch as giving the correct information to the court is concerned. 33. Thus, in that regard, we completely agree with the learned Single Judge to the effect that the B.L. & L.R.O. had made wrong statements deliberately by intentionally affirming affidavits before the court to be true to her knowledge, which averments were not supported by any relevant documents (rather, belied by the annexures to the affidavits themselves). 14 34. However, at the same time, we are of the opinion that some amount of lenience ought to be shown to the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. inasmuch as the said Officer was not supposed to be thoroughly acquainted with the nuances of legal nitty-gritties. At the same time, we cannot overlook the fact that the affidavit was in crisp English language, obviously drafted by a learned Advocate who was also posted with the annexures which were a part of the affidavits. 35. Thus, the entire blame cannot be cast on the B.L. & L.R.O. alone but is partially attributable to the misconstruing of law by the concerned learned advocate. 36. Be that as it may, it is beyond the pale of the present appeal to examine the role of the learned Advocate representing the BL & LRO at the relevant juncture. Fact remains that misleading statements were made in the two affidavits affirmed by the BL & LRO. However, at the same time, in the very same affidavits in which the misleading statements were made, the concerned B.L & L.R.O. also made statements which were contradictory to such misleading statements as to the acquisition of plot no. 1338, clearly also 15 indicating that the said plot was retained by the predecessor- in-interest of the writ petitioners. 37. Thus, some amount of the sting out of the said misleading statements is taken out by the mitigating factor that the fact of retention was also mentioned in the affidavits themselves. 38. Insofar as the judgment of Suburban Agricultural Dairy (supra) is concerned, the same does not have a direct bearing on the present case. It was postulated there that by virtue of Sections 4 and 5 of the 1953 Act, there is an automatic vesting subject to the exceptions under Section 6 of the 1953 Act. 39. In the present case, when the affidavits were affirmed, the B.L. & L.R.O. was sufficiently posted with facts to know that the so-called automatic vesting with regard to the plot no. 1338 was not the final position of the matter by virtue of the retention which had taken place in respect of the self-same plot by the intermediary, which should have been categorically stated in her affidavits. 40. Insofar as the judgments pertaining to the tests regarding expunction of adverse remarks is concerned, we find that all the tests are substantially met in the present case. Here, for example, the B.L. & L.R.O., whose conduct is in question, was 16 given an opportunity of explaining herself by filing a supplementary affidavit. 41. Secondly, there is evidence on record in the form of the annexures to the affidavits themselves bearing on her conduct, rather than justifying the remarks, belying the same. 42. Furthermore, the factum of acquisition of the proceeding was not only necessary for the decision of the case but was an integral part of the adjudication. 43. In the matter of State of Punjab and Anr. vs. Shikha Trading Company (supra), which has been cited by the appellants themselves, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that the power of expunging remarks must be exercised with care and circumspection since it is an undefined power and is to be exercised only to remedy flagrant abuse of power. Going by the said test, we do not find as such any flagrant abuse of power by the learned Single Judge in imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- on the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. for having made deliberate and incorrect statements before the Court. 44. In the event the B.L. & L.R.O. was in doubt as to the correctness of the factual matrix, it was open to the concerned 17 B.L. & L.R.O. to clarify the same in her affidavit itself, which was not done. 45. However, regarding the portion of the impugned order which requires the reflection of the punishment in the service book of the B.L. & L.R.O., we are of the opinion that the said component of the punishment would be rather disproportionate with the offence committed by the B.L. & L.R.O. in view of the mitigating factors we have discussed hereinabove. 46. In such view of the matter, FMA No. 356 of 2018 is partially allowed, thereby modifying the impugned judgment dated March 7, 2014 passed in WP No. 8477 (W) of 2003 to the extent that the portion of the impugned judgment which directs that the service book of the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. would record the punishment meted out to her is hereby set aside. 47. However, we make it abundantly clear that we affirm the rest of the impugned judgment, even apart from the merits, regarding the award of costs of Rs.10,000/- against the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. and the direction on the D.L. & L.R.O. to deduct the said amount from the salary of the said B.L. & L.R.O., if she does not deposit the same. 18 48. In view of the pendency of the appeal for so long and the stay operating in respect of the impugned order, however, we extend the time for payment of the cost by the B.L. & L.R.O. to the writ petitioners till December 15, 2025. 49. In the event the costs are not paid by the B.L. & L.R.O. within the said period, the same will be deducted from the salary of the B.L. & L.R.O. for the month of January, 2026 and paid to the writ petitioners / private respondents. 50. There will be no order as to costs. 51. Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. I agree. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) AD -6 Ct No.16 27.11.2025 (SSS)