( 1 ) TO save the Trust Property, a Public Charitable Trust has come before this Court with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by challenging the illegal termination of the lease by the Kolkata Municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as KMC) and its demand for possession of the petitioners' leasehold property from the petitioners.

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY by a registered lease deed dated 31 st May, 1994, KMC demised 19. 6 acres of land at J. B. S. Haldane Sarani to the petitioner No. 1 being a Public Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) for a period of 30 years for setting up a craft village in the said premises, on the terms and conditions as contained in the said deed.

( 3 ) THE physical possession o1 the said premises was handed over by KMC to the said Trust on 28th September, 1997. Subsequently by another supplementary Indenture dated 9th July, 1999 executed between the KMC and the Trust, it was clarified that an area of 18. 11 acres of land at the said premises was demised in favour of the Trust instead of 19. 6 acres, as mentioned in the earlier deed dated 31 st May, 1994.

( 4 ) THE terms and conditions ccf the said lease were settled between the KMC and the Trust under the mediation of the State Government with its high dignitaries including the therr Chief Minister of West Bengal. Apart from the lease rent which was agreed to be paid by the Trust to the KMC, the State Government also assured payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2. 20 crores to be made to the KMC in advance as balance cost for acquisition of land by the State Government.

( 5 ) EVEN after grant of such lease, KMC created obstruction at the time when the Trust was constructing a boundary wall to protect its leasehold property and thereby giving rise to a writ petition being W. P. No. 1696 of 2001. On 28th August, 2001, an order was passed by a learned Single judge of this Court in the said writ petition giving liberty to the Trust to erect the boundary wall less than three meters in height with prior intimation to the KMC.

( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY by the impugned notice dated 19th December, 2001 issued by the Chief Valuer and Surveyor-l of the KMC, the Secretary of the trust was intimated about the decision of the Mayor dated 24th August, 2001 and MIC resolution dated 24th august, 2001 regarding cancellation of the petitioners' lease by KMC on the ground of forfeiture. By the impugned notice, the petitioners were also requested to hand over the possession of the said land immediately upon receipt of the said notice.

( 7 ) THE reason for invocation of the power of termination of the lease on the ground of forfeiture has not been disclosed to the Trust. Even, the decision which was taken either by the Mayor or by the members of the mic on 24th August, 2001 as referred to in the impugned notice, was not supplied to the Trust.

( 8 ) CHALLENGING the legality of termination of the lease by KMC as well as the legality of demand for immediate possession, the Trust and its secretary filed instant writ petition, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith recall, rescind, withdraw and/or cancel the impugned notice dated 19th December, 2001 and also the resolution of the MIC and the order of the Mayor both dated 24th August, 2001 and also to desist the respondents from giving effect to and/or further effect to the impugned notice, the said resolution of the MIC and the said order of the Mayor and further to desist the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the said leasehold property except by complying with due process of law.

( 9 ) AN interim order was passed by Justice Barin Ghosh (as His lordship then was) on 4th February, 2002 whereby it was directed that without leave of this Court, let the petitioners' possession be not interfered with in respect of the leasehold premises in question of which lease has been cancelled without due process of law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document