Supreme Court: While considering this SLP concerning a dispute centred around Sikmi Tenancy Rights under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, the Division Bench of Surya Kant, CJI and Joymalya Bagchi, J., noted that with the initiatives and efforts taken by the counsels for the parties and the Mediator, the parties have settled their dispute and have entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 07-07-2025.
Background:
The petitioner resides in a two storied building, with the Municipal Holding of Islampur Municipality standing. The petitioner and the respondent have been in joint possession of Schedule A property since 1960. The sale deed of the premises was purchased during the lifetime of the grandfather of petitioner and is registered in the respondent’s name. The parties were carrying on common business under the trade name and style of Sarat Tea Company Private Limited and Bimala Devi Tea Company Private Limited. Post the demise of the petitioner’s grandfather, differences cropped up between the parties to manage, supervise, and control the properties of the said two companies. Consequently, an amicable family settlement agreement was arrived on 23-01-2009 through which shares of both the businesses were transferred as per the mutual agreement between the parties. Within one year of the execution of Family Settlement, the respondent filed a title suit. The Civil Judge delivered the judgment in favour of the petitioner and dismissed the suit, by holding that inter alia the respondent failed to prove that at the relevant point of time, he had sufficient income to purchase the suit land and to construct Schedule A property thereon. The respondents filed an appeal against the judgment dated 30-04-2012 passed by the Trial Court. The aforesaid judgment and decree under appeal were set aside by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge vide order dated 30-11-2012.
Being aggrieved with the order of the Appellate Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before Calcutta High Court challenging the appellate decree passed by the Additional District Judge. The High Court opined that no substantial question of law is involved in the present case. Hence, the present SLP was filed on the ground that the High Court vide Judgment dated 22-03-2024 erred in its observation with respect to the rights of the petitioners as a Sikmi Tenant and has failed to take on record the relevant documents supporting his claim.
Orders leading to Mediation:
In its August 2024 Order, the Supreme Court stated that the parties have not been able to agree even for the demarcation of the disputed property. Therefore, the Court directed the District Revenue Officer/Tehsildar of the area to carry out the measurement of the entire property including the plots. The Court directed the SSP to deploy adequate police force so that no untoward incident happens at the time of measurement. The Court said that the expenditure incurred by the State on the measurement exercise will be determined on the next date of hearing after receipt of the Measurement Report. Such expenditure was directed to be borne by both the parties. The Court continued the Interim order of maintaining status quo, till further orders. Meanwhile, the Court directed the petitioner to cure the defects in the application for substitution to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased sole respondent.
Subsequently, on 7-5-2025, the Court took note of certain the facts beyond the subject matter of this litigation and the parties’ close relationship. The Court deemed it fit to the explore the possibility of an amicable settlement of the dispute and suggested the following:
(a) The respondent may surrender and hand over the possession of the vacant land, other than the temple, in CS Plot No.1172 exclusively in favour of the petitioners.
(b) The petitioners will construct their separate residential house on CS Plot No.1172 after merging the vacant land to be given to them by the respondent along with 2.8 Katha of land already in their possession.
(c) The petitioners shall construct their house within one year.
(d) The respondent shall permit the petitioners to retain possession of first floor of the house in CS Plot No.1173 for a period of one year, to enable the petitioners to construct their own house.
(e) Once the house is constructed, the petitioners will have to hand over vacant possession of the part of the house in their possession in CS Plot No.1173, free from all encumbrances and unconditionally, in favour of the respondent.
The Court then further took note that a temple was constructed on CS Plot No.1172. The Court stated out that the issue regarding temple as well as other structures can be worked out with the assistance of a seasoned and experienced Mediator, who might find out some viable solution in this regard. Consequently, and as suggested by the counsel/Senior Counsel for the parties, the matter was referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement of the dispute.
In its subsequent order, dated 30-7-2025, the Court noted that the parties amicably resolved their dispute pursuant to the afore-stated order. In terms of the settlement, the Court stated that the respondents are obligated to discharge the mortgage liability within two months so that the piece of land which the respondents have handed over to the petitioners is also free from all encumbrances.
Present Order:
In the present order, having noted the amicable settlement of dispute via Mediation, and entered a Settlement Agreement, the Court stated that the appellants will facilitate the withdrawal of a sum of Rs.18,60,000 along with the interest accrued thereupon in favour of the respondents, which is lying deposited with the High Court. The Registry of the High Court was directed to release the amount in favour of the respondents.
The Court further held that judgment of the High Court and of the courts below are, accordingly, modified and substituted by way of the Settlement Agreement dated 07-07-2025. The parties shall abide by the terms and conditions thereof. The pending litigation between the parties before the High Court or any other forum shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
[Rajat Chowdhury v. Dhananjay Chowdhury, SLP(C)No.13494 of 2024, order dated 8-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Swarnendu Chatterjee, AOR Ms. Harshita Rawat, Adv. Mr. Ali Abbas Masoodi, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Dhananjay Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Anand Sukumaran, Adv. Mr.Sayaree Basu Mallik, AOR