HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sinha
DHIRENDRA KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Matter 61 Of 1953
Decided On : FEBRUARY 02, 1956
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 19(1)(F) - ARTICLE 31 - ARTICLE 226 - RIGHT TO PROPERTY - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - INJUNCTION - POSSESSION OF LAND - TITLE TO LAND - NOTICE TO QUIT - FORCIBLE POSSESSION - EXECUTIVE ACTION - STATE GOVERNMENT - UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION - REGISTERED SOCIETY.
Fact of the Case:
The National Cricket Club, an unincorporated association, was in possession of a cricket ground and club premises in the Eden Gardens, Calcutta. The Calcutta Cricket Club, which had previously occupied the land, had moved elsewhere after India attained independence. The National Cricket Club raised funds and paid compensation to the Calcutta Cricket Club. The club took possession of the land and structures and began to construct a stadium. The State Government of West Bengal claimed ownership of the land and served a notice to quit on the National Cricket Club. The club filed an application for a writ of mandamus and an injunction to prohibit the State Government from taking possession of the land and structures.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the State Government had a right to claim ownership of the land and to serve a notice to quit on the National Cricket Club. The court found that there was no threat of executive action or forcible possession by the State Government. The court also held that the National Cricket Club had not established any grounds for the issue of a high prerogative writ or any order and direction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government had a right to claim ownership of the land and to serve a notice to quit on the National Cricket Club? 2. Whether there was a threat of executive action or forcible possession by the State Government? 3. Whether the National Cricket Club had established any grounds for the issue of a high prerogative writ or any order and direction under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Government had a right to claim ownership of the land and to serve a notice to quit on the National Cricket Club because the State Government claimed to be the owner of the land and the National Cricket Club was in possession without any legal right. 2. There was no threat of executive action or forcible possession by the State Government because the State Government had not taken any action beyond serving a notice to quit and there was no evidence of any threat of force. 3. The National Cricket Club had not established any grounds for the issue of a high prerogative writ or any order and direction under Article 226 of the Constitution because the club had not shown that its fundamental rights had been violated or that there was any threat of executive action or forcible possession by the State Government.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for a writ of mandamus and an injunction.
( 1 ) THIS is an application made by one Dhirendra Kumar Roy Chowdhury, as a member of an unincorporated society of persons known as the National Cricket Club, having its office at Eden Gardens, Calcutta. The facts are shortly as follows : There exists in the city of Calcutta, at a spot very near these Courts, an open space known as the Eden Gardens. In a part of the said Gardens there existed a cricket ground, which came into existence as far back as 1825. For a large number of years, and at the time when India attained independence, the cricket ground was in the* occupation of the Calcutta Cricket Club, the members whereof were mostly foreigners. After India attained independence, there was a move for taking over the lands and structures then in the possession of the Calcutta Cricket Club, and it appears that in or about 1950 an unincorporated association known as the National Cricket Club came into existence. The members of this Club raised a sum of about two lakhs and this was paid towards compensation received by the Calcutta Cricket Club, which, I am informed, has moved elsewhere. The National Cricket Club or the N. C. C. as it has come to be known, took possession of the lands and structures previously occupied by the C. C. C. Originally these consisted of a cricket ground and the Club premises with its furnitures, fittings and excise licence. Since then, sporadic attempts have been made to construct a stadium. Some stands have been constructed but it can scarcely merit the description of a stadium. It appears from the correspondence carried on between the Secretary of the N. C. C. and the Chief Minister of West Bengal, that what was contemplated was that the unincorporated association should be registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, and the Government should execute a lease in favour of the registered society which would complete the construction of a stadium known as the Ranji Stadium, This fact is not disputed and appears clearly from the letter dated 20-11-1950 written by Mr. Pankaj Gupta to Dr. Roy, copy whereof is contained at p. 22 of Ex. A annexed to the affidavit affirmed by Rabindra Kumar Mitra on 22-4-1955. The correspondence and the relevant documents have been conveniently collected in Ex. A annexed to the said affidavit and I shall refer to the said Exhibit and to the pagination thereof. Before I enter into the details of the further events, I shall delineate shortly as to what happened. The unincorporated association did get itself registered and the certificate of registration is dated 31-1-1951 (p. 1 ). Draft leases were prepared, providing for the granting of a lease for 99 years to the said registered society. Thereafter, disputes commenced. Firstly, the dispute was with regard to the ownership of the Eden Gardens. Previous to the attainment of independence, the Gardens were undoubtedly held by the Centre. After independence, lands which were used for the purposes of the Union vested in the Union and lands which Were used for the purposes of the State, vested in the State. It appears that nobody paid any attention to the question as to the purposes for which the land in question was being used at the material point of time, and while the Union never abandoned its claim, a draft lease was prepared on the footing that the State of West Bengal would be the lessor, meaning thereby that the land had vested in the State. It appears from a letter addressed by the Government of India in its Ministry of Defence, to the Government of "west Bengal, dated 8-3-1951 (p. 85) that the Government of India had no objection to the site in question being leased to the National Cricket Club, on payment of an annual rent (nominal) of Re. 1/- for the erection of a cricket Stadium thereon. It is stated in that letter that the delegation of control over the Calcutta Maidan which included the Eden Gardens, by the Government of India to the Government of Bengal in 1921, did not operate as
State of West Bengal v. Birendra Nath
Virendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd
Ram Jaidaya Kapur v. State of Punjab
Motilal v. Uttar Pradesh Government
Referred to : Wazirchand v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.