Establishing the Ceiling of Homestead Land under Welfare Schemes in Squatters’ Colonies: Judicial Clarification in Parulbala Mondal v. State of West Bengal: Calcutta High Court

Introduction

The judgment in the case of Parulbala Mondal v. State of West Bengal and Others, delivered by the Calcutta High Court on March 26, 2025, addresses a complex dispute arising from the measurement and conveyance of land to a long-term squatter under the State’s Refugee Rehabilitation Programme. Central to the dispute is the determination of the quantum of land that can be regularized under the welfare scheme. The petitioner, Parulbala Mondal, has occupied a 15-decimal plot (equivalent to approximately 9 cottahs and 1 chittak) since 1947 through the rehabilitation programme, but various administrative and judicial assessments resulted in discrepancies regarding the precise measurement of her holding.

The core issues include:

The conflict between the petitioner’s claim of continuous possession of 15 decimals and the State’s fluctuating measurements (ranging between 2 cottahs and 3 cottahs 11 chittaks).
The applicability of a State welfare policy—specifically, the ceiling of 5 cottahs of homestead land per family under such schemes.
The implications of earlier civil suit decrees and whether the administrative orders of the Refugee Rehabilitation (RR) Department are binding, especially when they conflict with the district court’s findings.

The parties involved are the petitioner, a long-term occupant and beneficiary of a rehabilitative scheme, and the respondents, representing the State authorities and officials of the RR Department charged with the measurement and regularization of the land.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court meticulously examined the entire administrative and judicial record, including multiple survey reports, State communications, and the decrees from the earlier civil suit concerning land measurement and possession. The key findings of the judgment were:

The petitioner’s continuous possession, which began in 1947, was unequivocally acknowledged by State communications and the Record of Rights.
A civil suit decree dated January 16, 2017 established that the petitioner was in possession of the entire 15 decimals of the property, even though partition and measurement disputes remained unresolved in some administrative records.
The conflicting measurement reports by the RR Department were deemed to be secondary to the district court’s conclusive decree regarding possession.
The Court held that the applicable State policy (the 1987 scheme) is a welfare measure intended to regularize squatter occupancy only up to a maximum of 5 cottahs per family—that is, irrespective of the petitioner’s actual occupation of a larger area.
Consequently, while the petitioner’s claim of occupation was accepted, only 5 cottahs of the land were to be regularized in her favor. The surplus portion in excess of 5 cottahs was required to be segregated and surrendered, ensuring that the policy objectives are not undermined for other similarly-placed squatters.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references significant precedents such as:

ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards and another v. Mandal Revenue Officer, AP (1996) 6 SCC 634: This case was cited to emphasize the principle that administrative policies, when applied to welfare schemes, must be given a liberal construction in favor of the beneficiaries, provided there is no statutory force that limits such application.
J.R Raghupathy and others v. State of AP (1988) 4 SCC 364: This decision further reinforced the understanding that notifications and administrative policies, even if not published in the official gazette, may carry persuasive weight if they are part of a coherent welfare strategy.

Both cases contextualize the Court’s approach in balancing equity and public policy objectives, asserting that welfare policies must not be piecemeal invoked to the detriment of the broader beneficiaries’ rights.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning unfolds in several stages:

Reaffirmation of Possession: Drawing on the evidence from State communications (notably the July 9, 1976 communication) and the definitive civil suit decree of January 16, 2017, the Court reaffirmed that the petitioner had indisputable possession of the property since 1947. This was essential to the discussion on title and measurement.
Conflict in Measurement: Despite the petitioner claiming 15 decimals and the State’s survey reports contending with lower figures, the Court held that when administrative findings are in conflict, a clear judicial decree (i.e., the 2017 decree) must prevail as the factual determination.
Application of the Welfare Policy: The Court scrutinized the 1987 welfare scheme, clarifying its purpose: to rapidly regularize housing for squatters under an objective ceiling of 5 cottahs of homestead land per family unit. The Court opined that even though the petitioner was in possession of a larger area, the policy’s restrictions must bind the process in order to protect the interests of all beneficiaries.
Equitable Jurisdiction and Discretion: Invoking its inherent equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court highlighted that writ remedies are discretionary. This meant that even if the petitioner’s claims were substantiated, equity demanded that the relief granted not prejudice others similarly situated.

Impact on Future Cases and Relevant Area of Law

This judgment stands as a precedent in several respects:

It reinforces that judicial decrees—in cases of conflicting administrative records—serve as the primary guide for determining factual issues such as possession and quantum of land.
By stressing the need to adhere to the ceiling limits set out in welfare schemes, the judgment sends a clear signal to state authorities that administrative policies will be given binding effect, ensuring uniform application for future cases involving squatter regularization.
The decision emphasizes the balance between individual claims and broader public policy, thus setting guidelines for equitable adjudication when welfare benefits are in question.
Lastly, the ruling potentially limits overreach by State agencies in modifying established judicial facts simply on the basis of inconsistent administrative measurements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal terminologies and procedural intricacies appear in the judgment. Here are brief explanations for clarity:

Quashing of Administrative Orders: This refers to the judicial invalidation of orders if they conflict with higher legal principles or court decrees. In this case, the court quashed the disputed communication (dated November 22, 2023) to align the process with the earlier civil decree.
Equitable Jurisdiction under Article 226: Unlike strict legal remedies, equitable remedies offer flexible relief based on fairness. The court used this power to ensure that while the petitioner received the benefit of a Free Hold Title for up to 5 cottahs, the welfare scheme’s intent was preserved for future beneficiaries.
Free Hold Title Deed (FHTD): This is the legal instrument by which ownership of the land is conferred. Its issuance in this case was conditional on the petitioner surrendering any surplus land beyond the prescribed policy limit.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Parulbala Mondal v. State of West Bengal is significant for its balanced and equitable enforcement of welfare policies governing squatters’ colonies. While the petitioner’s longstanding possession of the property was recognized, the judgment reinforces that the State’s scheme—designed to benefit a large number of squatters by confining freehold regularization within a 5-cottah limit—must be uniformly applied.

By upholding the 2017 civil decree as the definitive measurement standard and by quashing inconsistent administrative orders, the Court has provided a clear roadmap for future cases where administrative ambiguities and conflicting records might otherwise undermine the equitable distribution of welfare benefits. This case not only cements the judicial interpretation of administrative policies in the context of land regularization but also underscores the crucial interplay between judicial review and public policy in ensuring justice for vulnerable populations.

Establishing the Ceiling of Homestead Land under Welfare Schemes in Squatters’ Colonies: Judicial Clarification in Parulbala Mondal v. State of West Bengal