A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case revolves around a dispute concerning the title and possession of a property allotted under a government rehabilitation program. The Supreme Court scrutinized the misuse of welfare schemes by individual family members at the cost of collective family rights. It held that the property allotted under welfare schemes for displaced families post-partition of India should benefit the entire family as a unit and not just one individual. The Court deprecated attempts to usurp such welfare benefits for personal advantage. It restored the trial court’s decision dismissing the suit for injunction and allowing the counterclaim to rectify the lease deed to include other family members.

Keywords: Rehabilitation Programs, Welfare Legislation, Misuse, Partition, Joint Family.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Bina Basak & Ors. v. Sri Bipul Kanti Basak & Ors.

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5525 of 2016.

iii) Judgement Date: March 21, 2024.

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India.

v) Quorum: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

vi) Author: Justice Vikram Nath.

vii) Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1281; 2024 INSC 279.

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None explicitly mentioned.

x) Related Law Subjects: Civil Law, Property Law, Welfare Legislation.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute arose from property allotted under a welfare scheme by the Government of West Bengal to a family displaced by partition. The appellants challenged the claim of exclusivity over the property by one family member. They sought recognition of joint ownership in alignment with the scheme’s intent of family rehabilitation. The High Court, however, dismissed their appeal. The Supreme Court intervened to address the misuse of welfare schemes and ensure equitable distribution of benefits among family members.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The Basak family migrated from East Pakistan to India in 1950 following the partition.
2. The eldest son, Benode Behari Basak, applied for land allotment under a rehabilitation program for the benefit of the displaced family, comprising seven members.
3. The property was ultimately allotted in the name of Smt. Hem Prova Basak, wife of Benode Behari, for administrative convenience.
4. The family jointly constructed a house on the allotted plot, utilizing collective income and resources.
5. Disputes arose when Smt. Hem Prova claimed exclusive ownership, asserting her right through the lease deed.
6. The lease deed was subsequently canceled by the government to facilitate equitable distribution among family members.
7. Smt. Hem Prova filed a suit seeking an injunction against the inclusion of other family members in the title. The appellants counterclaimed for recognition of joint ownership.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the rehabilitation program intended for family welfare can be limited to individual ownership.
2. Whether the High Court erred in ignoring evidence supporting the appellants’ claims of joint ownership.
3. Whether the suit for injunction was sustainable after the cancellation of the lease deed.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The rehabilitation program aimed to benefit the entire displaced family, not an individual.
2. The construction of the house was funded collectively by the three brothers, showing joint ownership.
3. The affidavits and official communications confirmed the intent of family-based allotment.
4. The cancellation of the lease deed invalidated the respondent’s exclusive claim.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The property was allotted exclusively to Smt. Hem Prova Basak, as evidenced by the lease deed.
2. The appellants were mere licensees who had been allowed to live on the property temporarily.
3. The subsequent cancellation of the lease deed did not affect the validity of the earlier allotment.

H) JUDGEMENT

a) Ratio Decidendi

The Court emphasized the welfare purpose of the rehabilitation program, which was to benefit displaced families collectively. It declared that exclusive claims undermined the scheme’s intent and amounted to a misuse of welfare legislation.

b) Obiter Dicta

The Court expressed disapproval of exploiting government policies for personal gain and reiterated the necessity of protecting collective family rights in similar cases.

c) Guidelines

1. Welfare legislation should benefit all intended beneficiaries, not individuals exclusively.
2. Affidavits and official records are crucial in determining the intent behind welfare programs.
3. Courts must discourage misuse of welfare schemes and ensure equitable distribution.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscores the need for judicial vigilance in preventing the misuse of welfare legislation. It reinforces the principle that government schemes intended for collective benefit should not be monopolized by individuals.

J) REFERENCES

1. Important Cases Referred:

   • None explicitly mentioned in the judgment.

2. Important Statutes Referred:

   • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.