Supreme Court Upholds Family Rights in Property Dispute: Bina Basak vs. Bipul Kanti Basak (2024)

Date of the Judgment: March 21, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 279
Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

Can a family member claim exclusive ownership of a property allotted under a government rehabilitation program, even when the program is designed for the benefit of the entire family? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a family that migrated from East Pakistan in 1950. The court’s decision underscores that such rehabilitation programs are meant for the collective benefit of all family members, not just the individual in whose name the property is recorded. This judgment highlights the importance of upholding the true intent of welfare policies and preventing their misuse for personal gain. The bench comprised of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute concerning a family that migrated from East Pakistan to Siliguri, West Bengal, in 1950. Late Krishna Behari Basak had three sons: Benode Behari Basak, Bimal Kanti Basak, and Benoy Krishna Basak. Benode Behari Basak, the eldest, applied for land allotment under a government rehabilitation program intended for displaced families. Although the initial application was in his name, the allotment was eventually made in the name of his wife, Smt. Hem Prova Basak.

The family began constructing a house on the allotted plot. Benode Behari Basak later admitted that the construction was funded by the joint income of all three brothers. Despite this, the lease deed was executed solely in the name of Smt. Hem Prova Basak on November 3, 1975. Subsequently, the two younger brothers, Bimal Kanti Basak and Benoy Kumar Basak, requested that their names be included in the lease. The government initially approved this request, but a dispute arose, leading to litigation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by Smt. Hem Prova Basak and partially allowed the counterclaim, declaring the lease deed in her favor as illegal and invalid. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision, ruling in favor of Smt. Hem Prova Basak. The appellants then filed a second appeal before the Calcutta High Court, which was also dismissed on December 18, 2013. During the pendency of the second appeal, Smt. Hem Prova Basak withdrew her suit challenging the cancellation of the lease deed. The matter then reached the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of government policies aimed at rehabilitating displaced families. The core issue was whether a property allotted under such a scheme should be considered the exclusive property of the individual in whose name the lease deed was executed, or whether it should be viewed as a joint family property intended for the benefit of all family members. The court also considered the implications of the cancellation of the original lease deed and the subsequent issuance of freehold title deeds in the names of all three brothers’ families.

Arguments

The appellants, the family members of Bimal Kanti Basak and Benoy Kumar Basak, argued that the land allotment was intended for the benefit of the entire family, not just Smt. Hem Prova Basak. They emphasized that the initial application, affidavits, and communications with government officials clearly indicated that the allotment was for the rehabilitation of the entire family. They also highlighted that the house was constructed using the joint funds of all three brothers. Furthermore, they contended that the cancellation of the lease deed in 1995 and the subsequent withdrawal of Smt. Hem Prova Basak’s suit challenging the cancellation, eliminated the very basis for her eviction suit.

The respondent, Smt. Hem Prova Basak, argued that the First Appellate Court and the High Court had correctly examined the material on record and that the lease deed was executed in her name, making her the sole owner of the property. She maintained that the other family members were merely licensees and were required to vacate the premises.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the property allotted under the government rehabilitation program was intended for the benefit of the entire family or just the individual in whose name the lease deed was executed?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Affidavit dated 30.12.1952 by Benode Behari Basak, stating that the land was required for the benefit of the refugee family.
• Affidavit dated 13.11.1953 by Smt. Hem Prova Basak, stating the family had to leave their properties in Pakistan.
• Order dated 03.12.1953 by the Deputy Commissioner, Darjeeling, for allotment of the plot in favor of Smt. Hem Prova Basak.
• Statement dated 07.02.1975 by Benode Behari Basak, admitting that the house was constructed with joint funds.
• Letter dated 28.09.1975 from the Government of West Bengal, calling Smt. Hem Prova Basak for the conferment of rights.
• Letter dated 25.09.1975 from Sub-Divisional Officer, Siliguri, to Benode Behari Basak regarding the inclusion of his brothers’ names.
• Order dated 03.08.1979, recording that names of Bimal Kanti Basak and Benoy Kumar Basak be included in the lease deed.
• Order dated 07.11.1979 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, allowing the inclusion of the two brothers’ names.
• Order dated 23.08.1983, allowing rectification of the lease deed to include the names of Bimal Kanti Basak and Benoy Kumar Basak.
• Communication dated 25.05.1995, cancelling the lease deed of 03.11.1975.

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the High Court and the First Appellate Court, restoring the Trial Court’s order. The Court held that the allotment was intended for the benefit of the entire family, not just Smt. Hem Prova Basak. The Court emphasized that the welfare policies of the government should not be misused for personal gain. The Court also noted that the cancellation of the lease deed and the subsequent withdrawal of the suit challenging the cancellation eliminated the very basis for Smt. Hem Prova Basak’s eviction suit.

The Court observed that Benode Behari Basak, being a government servant, had access to the local administration and used his position to favor his wife. The affidavits and communications between the concerned authorities clearly indicated that the allotment was for the family, not an individual. The Court stated that it highly deprecates such malpractices where welfare legislations are misused/abused by beneficiaries for personal advantage.

The Court stated, “We cannot emphasize enough that this Court highly deprecates such malpractices where the welfare legislations are misused/abused by beneficiaries for personal advantage, thereby defeating the very objective of such policies.”

The Court further stated, “The High Court has gone completely wrong in ignoring these affidavits and communications giving the reason that they were given in a different proceeding and therefore would not be of relevance and any help to the defendants.”

The Court also noted, “The lease deed in the exclusive name of Smt. Hem Prova Basak dated 03.11.1975 having been cancelled and the challenge to the said cancellation by way of a Civil Suit No.68 of 1995 having been withdrawn, the suit itself ought to have been dismissed, as the very basis of filing the suit was no longer in existence.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• The clear intent of the government’s rehabilitation program to benefit the entire family, not just one individual.
• The evidence that the house was constructed using the joint income of all three brothers.
• The fact that the original lease deed in the name of Smt. Hem Prova Basak was cancelled and the suit challenging the cancellation was withdrawn.
• The Court’s disapproval of attempts to misuse welfare policies for personal gain.

Key Takeaways

• Government rehabilitation programs are designed to benefit the entire family, not just the individual in whose name the property is allotted.
• A lease deed is not the sole determinant of ownership, especially in cases involving government rehabilitation programs.
• Welfare policies should not be misused for personal gain, and such attempts will be strongly discouraged by the courts.
• The cancellation of a lease deed and the withdrawal of a suit challenging the cancellation can eliminate the basis for an eviction suit.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court and the First Appellate Court, and restored the order of the Trial Court. This effectively means that the property is recognized as belonging to the entire family of the three brothers, and not just Smt. Hem Prova Basak.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that government rehabilitation programs are intended to benefit the entire family, and not just the individual in whose name the property is allotted. This judgment clarifies that a lease deed in the name of one family member does not automatically confer exclusive ownership rights, especially when the program is designed for the rehabilitation of all family members. The court’s decision reinforces the principle that welfare policies should not be misused for personal gain.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bina Basak & Ors. vs. Sri Bipul Kanti Basak & Ors. (2024) is a significant ruling that upholds the rights of family members in property disputes arising from government rehabilitation programs. The court’s decision underscores that such programs are intended for the collective benefit of all family members, and that attempts to misuse them for personal gain will be strongly discouraged. The judgment also clarifies that lease deeds are not the sole proof of ownership in such cases, and that the true intent of the government’s policy must be considered.