Back
High Court Of Calcutta
KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
SECRETARY, PARNASREE CLUB - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. O. 17477 (W) Of 1995
Decided On : 02/05/1999
ACQUISITION OF LAND - LAND ACQUISITION ACT - SECTIONS 535, 536, 537 - CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1980 - SECTIONS 535, 536, 537 - MANDAMUS - LOCUS STANDI - LEGAL RIGHT - STATUTORY DUTY - PUBLIC PURPOSE - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
A club, through its secretary, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to acquire land for a park and not mutate the names of private respondents in respect of the said plots of land. The club claimed possession of the land for over 30 years and alleged that the private respondents had illegally transferred the land in their favor.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the club lacked locus standi to maintain the writ petition as it had no legal right to enforce the acquisition of land. The court further held that the power to acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act was not a legal duty enforceable by mandamus. Additionally, the court found that the prayer to prevent mutation of names was infructuous as mutation had already been effected.
Issues: 1. Whether the club had locus standi to maintain the writ petition? 2. Whether the power to acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act was a legal duty enforceable by mandamus? 3. Whether the prayer to prevent mutation of names was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the club lacked locus standi as it had no legal right to enforce the acquisition of land. The court relied on the principle that a person can only seek a mandamus if they have a judicially enforceable right that has been violated. In this case, the club did not have a legal right to compel the acquisition of land. 2. The court held that the power to acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act was not a legal duty enforceable by mandamus. The court reasoned that the power to acquire land was discretionary and not coupled with a duty. Therefore, the club could not enforce the acquisition of land through a writ of mandamus. 3. The court held that the prayer to prevent mutation of names was infructuous as mutation had already been effected. The court noted that the club had knowledge of the mutation but failed to challenge it in a timely manner. Therefore, the court declined to grant this relief.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition without awarding costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioner being a Secretary of a Club, viz. , Parnasree Club which in its turn is a registered organisation under the Societies Registration Act has sought for relief in the form of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to act in accordance with law by acquiring the land under Dag Nos. 590 and 593 situate at Parnasree Behala for the purpose of building a Park for public of that locality, and further direction upon the Municipal Authority not to mutate the name of any private respondent in respect of the said plots of land and further a Writ of Certiorari directing the respondents to produce and certify the whole record so that conscientious justice be done by quashing the order passed in C. O. No. 4178 (W) of 1993. .
( 2 ) THE aforesaid reliefs are claimed on the basis of the facts as stated in the writ petition and substance of which is mentioned hereunder. .
( 3 ) THE subject-matter of the land being Dag Nos. 590 and 593 of Khatian No. 3627 under Mouza Behala were acquired by the Government of India under Rule 75a (2) of the Defence of India Rules for the defence purpose. This acquisition was done by and under a notice published in the Calcutta Gazette on 31st January, 1946. Subsequently the Central Government handed over the said plots of land to the Government of West Bengal for the need of its department of relief and rehabilitation for rehabilitation purpose, viz. , to accommodate the migrated persons from the then East Bengal. Though the aforesaid land was acquired and subsequently the possession thereof was handed over to the Government of West Bengal for construction of housing, the land was always being used as a playground of the children of that locality. The aforesaid Club, viz. , the Parnasree Club has been controlling the said land for its user. Sometimes in or about 1991 one Alef Nabi Mistri most illegally and clandestinely purported to have transferred the said two plots of land in favour of the respondent Nos. 10 to 13. This land now has been grabbed by the promoters who want to build up a multi-storied building and thereby they are attempting to destroy the playground so also environment of that locality. The said vendor had no title to transfer the interest of land in favour of the respondent 8 Nos. 10 to 13. The said private respondents in collusion with and connivance of the purported vendor have been able to obtain an order of release from this Court passed by His Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee in Civil Order No. 4178 (W) of 1993. Since no title has been passed on to the respondent Nos. 10 to 13, question of mutation of their names in place and stead of the true owner in the records of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation does not and cannot arise. The order of Justice Chatterjee does not and cannot change the title of the said land which still belongs to the Central Government. .
( 4 ) MR. Arun Prakash Chatterjee, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, submits after highlighting the facts mentioned therein and advances argument that the said Club has been in possession of the said plots of land uninterruptedly for a period of more than 30 years. The private respondents have clandestinely managed to obtain a conveyance from the erstwhile so-called vendor who did not have any right, title and interest therein to convey the property. This property had vested unto Central Government which in its turn handed over to and/or transferred in favour of the State of West Bengal. So the private respondent Nos. 10 to 13 cannot have any right, title and interest to get their names mutated in place and stead of the State of West Bengal and/or Central Government. Mr. Chatterjee further submits that even if such mutation having been effected the same should be cancelled and/or set aside as the said private respondents had not acquired any title. .
( 5 ) MR. Chatterjee, in his alternative argument, submits that even by interp
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
