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

1995 Supreme(Cal) 440

Ruma Pal
Santosh Kumar Chakraborty – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Ruma Pal, J.: None appeared on behalf of the added respondent, viz. North Bengal State Transport Corporation (NBSTC) after service. No affidavit-in-opposition has also been filed by the State-respondents although it appears that a copy of the affidavit-in-opposition was served by the respondents on the petitioner. I am, therefore, disposing of the application on the basis of the materials before me including the copy of the State respondents' affidavit handed over to Court by the petitioner.

2. The facts of the case relate to premises No. 73 and 73/1/2A, Bagmari Road, Calcutta (referred to as 'the' premises'). The petitioner No. 1 had purchased the premises in 1971. The premises were sought to be requisitioned under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 1948 Act'). The purpose of such requisition was stated for the purpose of maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and for increasing employment opportunities along with other facilities by construction of a civic centre in C.I.T. Scheme No. VIII. The area covered was 5 Cottas 4 sq.ft. being prevalent to 0.962 acres or 0.0389 hectre. The posses




































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top