SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Cal) 370

High Court Of Calcutta
A. K. MATHUR, ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE
UNION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
SEALDAH COLD STORAGE AND TRANSPORT LTD - Respondent
F. M. A 2840  Of  2002
Decided On : 07/28/2003

Advocates Appeared:
ASIT BANERJEE, Mihirlal Bhattacharji, R.N.DAS MOHAPATRA, SANGHA MITRA BANERJI, SOUMITRA MUKHERJEE, URMITA DATTA

A licence coupled with an interest in an immovable property is irrevocable in view of the underlying principles laid down in section 60(b) of the Easement Act.

Headnote:

LICENCE REVOCATION - PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - SECTION 60 OF THE EASEMENT ACT - RAILWAY LAND - COLD STORAGE - PUBLIC NEED - IRREVOCABLE LICENCE - COMPENSATION.

Fact of the Case:

In 1947, the Bengal Assam Railway authorities granted a licence to the respondents to set up a cold storage on railway land at Sealdah Railway station. The licence was not revoked, but the railway authorities demanded enhanced rent in 1976 and terminated the licence in 1997 for non-payment of fees. The respondents challenged the termination of the licence and the eviction notices issued by the railway authorities in a series of writ petitions.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the licence granted to the respondents was irrevocable in view of the provisions of section 60(b) of the Easement Act, which was applicable in the state of West Bengal. The court also held that the railway authorities could only revoke the licence upon payment of compensation to the respondents.

Issues: 1. Whether the licence granted to the respondents was revocable? 2. If the licence was revocable, what was the appropriate procedure for obtaining possession of the land in question by the railways?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the licence was irrevocable in view of the provisions of section 60(b) of the Easement Act, which was applicable in the state of West Bengal. 2. The court held that the railway authorities could only revoke the licence upon payment of compensation to the respondents.

Final Decision: The court directed the railway authorities to appoint a panel valuer to assess the value of the cold storage and to pay the respondents the compensation so assessed. The court also directed the respondents to vacate the cold storage within three months from the date of the order.

ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) IN or about 1947, Bengal Assam Railway authorities (now known as Eastern Railway) granted a licence in favour of the respondents for setting up a cold storage on the railway land at Sealdah Railway station to facilitate preservation of vegetable and other foodstuff being carried through railway transport. However, no formal agreement and/or specific licence was placed before us. Hence, we are unable to know the terms of the said licence.

( 2 ) BY a letter dated 3rd May, 1947 the Chief Commercial Manager, Bengal assam Railways (pages 49-50 of the Paper Book) asked the D8/ca to fix the licence fee and forward the structural plan of the said cold storage. Apart from the said letter no contemporaneous record could be produced by either of the parties for our perusal. Accordingly, the cold storage was constructed and the same was inaugurated on June 16,1948.

( 3 ) IN 1976 enhance rent was demanded by the railway authorities. On 29th september, 1997 the licence was terminated for non-payment of fees. There had been series of discussions for an amicable solution. Ultimately, on November 22, 1994 a notice of eviction was issued by the railway authorities. The said notice was challenged by the respondents by filing a writ petition in this Court wherein this Court by an interim order directed the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on account of arrear licence fee. The said writ petition was ultimately disposed of by an order dated 30th June, 2000 wherein learned Single judge gave liberty to the railway authorities to take necessary steps in the matter of eviction of the respondents in accordance with law.

( 4 ) PURSUANT to such liberty being given by this Court a further notice was issued on October 10, 2000 wherein the railway authorities asked the respondents to vacate the premises under section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" ). The petitioner replied to the said notice. Ultimately, the Estate officer, Eastern Railway by his order dated March 7, 2001 directed eviction of the respondents. Challenging the said order of eviction a second writ petition was filed wherein learned Single Judge by his order dated March 28, 2001 quashed the notice dated October 10, 2000 and the order flowing therefrom dated March 7, 2001. According to His Lordship the expression "in accordance with law" stipulated in the earlier order of this Court dated June 30, 2000 meant revocation of licence by the railway administration.

( 5 ) SINCE the licence was not revoked the notice of eviction was bad. The railway authority accepted the said order and issued a further notice dated october 8, 2001 inter alia revoking the licence and demanding possession of the railway land in question.

( 6 ) THE said notice dated October 8, 2001 (pages 114-115 of the Paper Book)was challenged by way of a third writ petition. Learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated May 20,2001 quashed the said notice and once again directed the railway authorities to act in accordance with law.

( 7 ) THE order of the learned Single Judge dated May 20, 2001 is the subject-matter of challenge in the instant appeal.

( 8 ) ON a proper appreciation of the facts as discussed hereinbefore the following facts are admitted as would appear from the pleadings as well as documents contained in the Paper Book : (1) Licence was granted in 1947 for using the railway land against a monthly licence fee. (2) The licence was granted for the purpose of construction of a cold storage on the said railway land. (3) The permission for construction was given simultaneously with the licence granted for using the railway land. (4) TWO earlier notices were quashed by this Court reiterating that the railway authorities must act in accordance with law.

( 9 ) THE learned Single Judge in his judgment and order under appeal held inter alia as follows :- (I) The objection of the railway aut








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top