Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee & Altamas Kabir, JJ.
Executive Engineer, P.W.D.
Vs.
Banalata Investment (P) Ltd.
F.M.A.T. Nos. 920, 921 and 922 of 1991
Decided on : January 12, 1994
LAND ACQUISITION - Possession - Vesting of title to the State - Whether the provisions of s. 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were satisfied and whether the State Government acquired title to the lands in question after taking actual possession of the same - Whether the State was within its rights to forcibly dispossess the writ petitioners/respondents from the shop rooms under their occupation.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners/respondents were in possession of the three shop rooms contained in the outhouse of premises No. 62, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Calcutta, on 19th March, 1991, when they were dispossessed therefrom by the State and the State respondents. The State Government obtained a licence/tenancy from the learned District Judge in respect of the ground floor of premises No. 62, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Calcutta, during the pendency of the Land acquisition proceedings. Such tenancy comprised of the entire ground floor, including the vacant land and the outhouses of the premises. Having obtained such licence/tenancy, the State Government allotted the said ground floor, including the outhouses, firstly, to Justice Purusattam Chatterjee in 1962 and, thereafter, to Lt. Colonel D. N. Chakraborty. Lt. Colonel D. N. Chakraborty vacated the premises and handed over possession thereof to the State Government on 5th December, 1983. On the self-same date the Land Acquisition Department handed over possession of the entire premises, together with all the structures, to the Public Works Department and since then the entire ground floor of the premises, including, the outhouses came to be in the possession of the Public Works Department.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the requirements of s. 16 of the Land Acquisition Act were duly satisfied and that title to the entire property vested to the State Government. Even though the writ petitioners were allowed to continue in possession of the shop rooms in the outhouse in question, such possession, in the Court's view, did not prevent the vesting of the entire property in the State Government. The Court also held that the dispossession of the writ petitioners/respondents on 19th March, 1991, was arbitrary and without due process of law and that the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the order dated 27th March, 1991, which had been impugned in these three appeals.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of s. 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were satisfied and whether the State Government acquired title to the lands in question after taking actual possession of the same? 2. Whether the State was within its rights to forcibly dispossess the writ petitioners/respondents from the shop rooms under their occupation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the requirements of s. 16 of the Land Acquisition Act were duly satisfied and that title to the entire property vested to the State Government. Even though the writ petitioners were allowed to continue in possession of the shop rooms in the outhouse in question, such possession, in the Court's view, did not prevent the vesting of the entire property in the State Government. 2. The Court held that the dispossession of the writ petitioners/respondents on 19th March, 1991, was arbitrary and without due process of law and that the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the order dated 27th March, 1991, which had been impugned in these three appeals.
Final Decision: The three appeals were dismissed and the writ applications were consequently allowed. The State of West Bengal and its authorities were directed not to disturb the possession of the writ petitioners/respondents in the shop rooms in question, without taking recourse to the provisions of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962, or such other legal provisions as may be available to them.
Altamas Kabir, J.:
These three appeals are being heard together as they arise out of the self-same order passed by the learned Trial Judge and involve common questions of fact and law. In fact the three stay applications filed in these appeals are also being heard along with the appeals.
2. In order to better appreciate the stand taken on behalf of the respective parties, it would be necessary to briefly set out the facts which led to the filing of the writ petitions giving rise to these appeals.
3. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in F.M.A.T. No. 920 of 1991, M/s. Banalata Investment (P) Ltd. and Smt. Indrani Chatterjee, claim to have been inducted as tenants in respect of the outhouse at premises No. 62, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Calcutta, by one Mr. V.C. Sood, who according to them is an original tenant of the said premises
4. The Respondent No. 1 in F.M.A.T. No. 921 of 1991, M/s. Good Luck Tyres & Automobiles, claims to be a partnership concern, with the Respondent No. 2 as one of its partners. The Respondent No. 2 claims to have obtained a tenancy initially in respect of one room in the ground floor of the aforesaid premises in 1975 from the owner/landlord in the name of M/s. United Motor Accessories & Cycle Co., which name was alleged to have been subsequently changed to M/s. Good Luck Tyres.
5. The Respondent No. 1 in F.M.A.T. No. 922 of 1991, M/s. Volcon Refrigeration, claims to be a partnership firm with the Respondent No. 2 as one of its partners. The Respondent No. 1 claims to have been inducted as a tenant in respect of one room in the ground floor of the aforesaid premises by the owner thereof, on the basis of an Agreement of Tenancy dated 2nd May, 1987, with one Mr. Shubir Kumar Ghosh, son of late Shotteyendra Kumar Ghosh, I.C.S.
6. All the above-mentioned respondents claim to be carrying on their respective business from the time of their entry into the afoersaid premises.
7. It is the common grievance of the said respondent that on 19th March, 1991, at about 1 p.m., the Executive Engineer-I, Public Works Department, Suburban Division, and the Law Officer, Public Works Department, accompanied by the Officer-in-Charge, Karaya Police Station, came their premises and asked them to vacate the same and to remove all their articles therefrom. According to the respondents, the said officers could not produce any paper or order of any competent authority in support of their said demand, despite the requests of the respondents requiring them to do so.
8. M/s. Banalata Investment (P) Ltd. thereupon moved a writ application on 19th March, 1991, itself, making M/s. Volcon Refrigeration a party therein. A learned Judge of this Court restrained the appellants herein from taking possession of the writ petitioners' office and place of business at 62, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Calcutta, and from disturbing the writ petitioner's possession therein, without the leave of the Court.
9. It appears that on the self-same day, the appellants herein locked and sealed the door of the writ petitioner's premises, resulting in a contempt application being moved on 20th March, 1991. The learned Trial Judge directed the Officer-in-Charge, Karaya Police Station, to take possession of the petitioner's premises, by breaking open the padlocks, if necessary, and to make an inventory of the articles, which were said to be lying inside the said premises, with the help of Mr. S. P. Ghosh, an advocate who was appointed as Special Officer.
10. On 27th March, 1991, M/s. Good Luck Tyres and Good Luck Automobiles, moved a separate writ application praying for the self-same reliefs as prayed for in the earlier writ application of M/s. Banalata Investment (P) Ltd. A writ application on similar grounds was also moved by M/s. Volcon Refrigeration. The contempt application filed by M/s. Volcon Refrigeration was also taken up by the learned Trial Judge on the same day and the State Respondents were directed to deliver back possession of the respective portions of the writ
AI
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
