1988 Supreme(Cal) 201

High Court Of Calcutta
PRABIR KUMAR MAJUMDAR
SATYAM CO-OP.HOUSING SOCY.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
CALCUTTA IMPROVEMENT TRUST - Respondent
Matter 1430  Of  1986
Decided On : 05/13/1988

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - DELAY IN ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS - UNDUE AND UNEXPLAINED DELAY ON THE PART OF IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR IN CONCLUDING ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS - ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITH THE ONLY OBJECT OF PEGGING DOWN THE PRICES OF THE LAND AT THE RATE PREVAILING IN THE YEAR 1964 - NO GENUINE PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION - ENTIRE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING THE AWARD THEREOF IS SET ASIDE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, a co-operative society, purchased a property in 1982, after obtaining necessary clearances from the authorities concerned. In 1984, they came to know that the said premises was scheduled for acquisition for Housing Scheme No. XII by the respondent No. 1 Calcutta Improvement Trust since 1964. The petitioners were informed that the letter dated 7th Aug., 1984, whereby the Society was informed that the said premises was not affected by any sanctioned or published scheme or alignment of the Trust, stood revoked. Thereafter, the petitioners received a notice from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation stating that since the said premises was scheduled for acquisition under the Calcutta Improvement Trust Scheme No. XI of the respondent No. 1 the same attracted the provision of Section 396 of the CMC Act and as such the plan as submitted by the Society for construction of building on the said premises could not be considered. The petitioners thereafter obtained a clearance certificate from the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. After due compliance with all the requirements on the formalities by the Society, the respondent No. 5 Calcutta Municipal Corporation duly sanctioned the said building plan submitted by the Society under S. 396 of the said CMC Act. While the construction was in progress, the petitioners received a letter from the respondent No. 2, the Chief Valuer of the Calcutta Improvement Trust. By the said letter the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioners that the State Government had refused to accord sanction to the cancellation of the said Housing Scheme No. XI. Therefore, the said Housing Scheme No. XI in respect of the said premises was valid and operative. The petitioners thereafter received a notice under S. 401 of CMC Act issued by the respondent No. 6, the Building Inspector Calcutta Municipal Corporation, whereby the Society was directed to stop forthwith the construction including addition and/or alteration at the said premises. The petitioners, thereafter, received two notices bearing Nos. 5097 and 5098 both dt. Sept. 3, 1986 from the respondent No. 4, the Land Acquisition Collector whereby the Society was informed that the said premises would be inspected on Sept. 18, 1986 and that the respondent No. 4 will make an award on Sept. 19, 1986 under S. 11 of the Acquisition Act. The petitioners challenged the said Special Notice No. 3130 issued by the Land Acquisition Collector dt. July 14, 1986 the notice under S. 416 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1981 and/or the section under Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act issued by the Building Inspector respondent No. 6 dated August 21st 1986 and the said notice No. 5098 dt. Sept. 3, 1986 issued by the respondent No. 4 the Land Acquisition Collector, on inter alia, the ground contained in the petition. The petitioners obtained a Rule Nisi in this writ application.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that there was undue and unexplained delay on the part of the Calcutta Improvement Trust and the Land Acquisition Collector in concluding the acquisition proceedings. The Court also found that the acquisition proceedings were initiated with the only object of pegging down the prices of the land at the rate prevailing in the year 1964. The Court further found that there was no genuine public purpose for the acquisition of the land in question. Accordingly, the Court set aside the entire acquisition proceedings including the award thereof.

Issues: 1. Whether there was undue and unexplained delay on the part of the Calcutta Improvement Trust and the Land Acquisition Collector in concluding the acquisition proceedings? 2. Whether the acquisition proceedings were initiated with the only object of pegging down the prices of the land at the rate prevailing in the year 1964? 3. Whether there was any genuine public purpose for the acquisition of the land in question?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that there was undue and unexplained delay on the part of the Calcutta Improvement Trust and the Land Acquisition Collector in concluding the acquisition proceedings. The Court noted that the acquisition proceedings were initiated in 1964, but no steps were taken to conclude the proceedings until 1986. The Court also noted that the Calcutta Improvement Trust had deferred the implementation of the scheme from time to time and had finally decided to abandon the scheme in 1985. The Court found that there was no explanation for the delay in concluding the acquisition proceedings. 2. The Court held that the acquisition proceedings were initiated with the only object of pegging down the prices of the land at the rate prevailing in the year 1964. The Court noted that the Calcutta Improvement Trust had stated in a letter that it had the advantage of having notified the scheme in the mid-1960s, and that as a result, land costs would be paid at the price prevailing at that time. The Court also noted that the State Government had refused to accord sanction to the cancellation of the scheme, even though the Calcutta Improvement Trust had recommended that the scheme be abandoned. 3. The Court held that there was no genuine public purpose for the acquisition of the land in question. The Court noted that the Calcutta Improvement Trust had not taken any steps to implement the scheme since it was notified in 1964. The Court also noted that the State Government had refused to accord sanction to the cancellation of the scheme, even though the Calcutta Improvement Trust had recommended that the scheme be abandoned.

Final Decision: The Court set aside the entire acquisition proceedings including the award thereof.