Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.
Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Vs.
Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors.
W.P.No. 1094 of 2002
Decided on : June 13, 2002
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - PETITIONER'S LOCUS STANDI - SECTION 3(B), 5A - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 53A - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT - SECTION 13(1)(FF) - WRIT PETITION - LOCUS STANDI - CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO CHALLENGE MUNICIPAL SANCTION - NAGAR RICE AND FLOUR MILLS V. N. TEEKAPPA GOWDA & BROS. - JASBHI MOTIBHAI DESAI V. ROSHAN KUMAR - J.M. DESAI V. ROSHAN KUMAR - M.S. JOYRAJ V. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KERALA & ORS. - JAYANTA KUMAR BANERJEE V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. - DAYAL PROSAD SANYAL V. NRIPENDRA CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY - HAMZABI & ORS. V. SYEED KARIMUDDIN & ORS. - DELHI MOTOR CO. & ORS. V. U.A. BASRURKAR & ORS. - Locus standi of a petitioner to challenge a municipal sanction or the title of the sanction holder in a writ petition; Application of the principles of locus standi as laid down in various Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, claiming to have entered into an agreement for a 99-year lease with the Calcutta Improvement Trust (CIT) for a disputed land, filed a writ petition seeking to stop construction on the land by the private respondent, who had purchased the land from the professed shebait of the Debottar Estate and obtained a sanctioned plan for construction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner lacked the necessary locus standi to maintain the writ petition since it had not acquired any interest in the land despite the agreement with CIT and no formal lease deed had been executed. The court also found that the petitioner had made inconsistent claims regarding its status in the land and had failed to provide evidence of a written agreement for the lease or any provision for possession before execution of a formal deed.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner, having merely entered into an agreement for a lease with CIT, had the locus standi to challenge the municipal sanction and the title of the private respondent in a writ petition? 2. Whether the principles of locus standi laid down in various Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court judgments were applicable in determining the petitioner's right to maintain the writ petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the definition of "person interested" in section 3(b) and the provisions of section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to hold that a person who has simply entered into an agreement for sale with the owner cannot be described as a person interested in compensation and cannot challenge a notification under section 4 of the Act. 2. The court distinguished the case of Jayanta Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors., relied upon by the petitioner, as the court in that case had failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. The court also distinguished the case of Dayal Prosad Sanyal v. Nripendra Chandra Chakraborty, as the principle laid down in that case was inapplicable to the present case, where the petitioner was not an allottee of a cooperative society who had constructed a building on the allotted land. 4. The court further distinguished the case of M.S. Joyraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala & Ors., as it did not provide authority for the proposition that a sanction granted by a municipality or the title of the sanction holder could be challenged in a writ petition by a person who had merely entered into an agreement to get a lease.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner lacked the necessary locus standi to maintain the application, without delving into the disputed question of fact regarding CIT's title over the property.
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.: In this writ application the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(a) Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No.1 Calcutta Municipal Corporation or its men, agents and subordinates to take immediate steps for stoppage of construction work on the land of the petitioner being 7 cottahs 14 chittacks in Block 'L' in C.LT. Scheme-VIIM formed out of old Premises No. 92, Bagmari Road, Kolkata presently premises No.92/2/1C. Bagmari Road, Kolkata;
(b) Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Calcutta Municipal Corporation being respondent Nos. 1 to 4 or its men, agents and subordinates to cancel the sanctioned plan, if there is any, with immediate effect in respect of the land of the petitioner being 7 Cottahs 14 Chittacks in Block 'L' in C.I.T. Scheme-VIIM formed out of old Premises No. 92, Bagmari Road, Kolkata presently Premises No. 92/2/1C. Bagmari Road, Kolkata;
(c) Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No.8 being the Police authority as also the respondents No.1 to 4 being the Corporation authorities to take immediate steps for stoppage of construction work which is going on in the plot of the land of the petitioner being 7 Cottahs 14 Chittacks in Block 'L' in C.I.T. Scheme-VIIM formed out of old Premises No. 92, Bagmari Road, Kolkata presently Premises No. 92/2/1C, Bagmari Road, Kolkata."
2. The case made out by the petitioner may be epitomized thus:
The land in dispute originally belonged to a Debottar Estate but the same was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after giving compensation to the said Debottar Estate. After such acquisition, the Government transferred the land to the Calcutta Improvement Trust ("CIT"). CIT in its term agreed to lease out the land for 99 years to the petitioner and the petitioner paid the premium to the CIT and took possession of the same. Recently, on or about March 14, 2002, the employees of the petitioner noticed that some unknown persons were busy digging up earth at the disputed land and had also dismantled a portion of the boundary wall. The petitioner came to know that the respondent No.9 on the basis of an alleged purchase from one Debidas Mukhopadhay, a professed shebait of the Debottar Estate is trying to make construction on the land. Although the petitioner approached the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and the local police station to stop the illegal construction, they were reluctant in the matter of taking any step for discontinuation of the construction on the land of the petitioner. Hence this application.
3. Mr. De, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent No.9 has taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ application itself. Objections of Mr. De are twofold.
4. First, he contends that even on the basis of averments made in the writ application, no deed of lease having been executed between CIT and the petitioner, simply be mere payment of premium to a prospective lessor, an intended lessee cannot acquire any interest in the land and thus the petitioner, in the absence of any interest in the land in question, cannot maintain this writ application.
5. Secondly, according to Mr. De, his client has purchased the property after taking permission from the learned District Judge from the shebait of the Deity whose name stood recorded in the assessment register of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and thereafter has mutated his name and obtained sanctioned plan for construction of the building. Mr. De complains that CIT at no point of time mutated its name in the record of Calcutta Municipal Corporation on the basis of the alleged acquisition and all along the name of the Debottar Estate remained in the assessment register till the name of the private respondent No.9 incorporated in its place. Mr. De seriously disputes the assertion that the land in question was ever acquired as alleged or that any compe
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
