THE PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 AS HE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDING OF THE PREMISES IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PREMISES HAS REACHED ITS FINALITY BY TAKING POSSESSION.

Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. The writ petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:–

(a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, each one of them, their servants and subordinates to act in accordance with law and to withdraw, recall and rescind the purported orders dated 2nd February, 1984, dated 19th September, 1981, 28th May, 1980 and dated 8th November, 1980 and the Notification No. 209/D.S.(N) U.L. (Cal)/6(1)/27/Vol.2176 dated 16th July, 1982 and to give exemption of the land of your petitioner under Section 20(1 )(a) of the Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

(b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 to certify and send all relevant records of in connection with the above, case being U.L. Case No. 6(1)/27 Vol. No.2 of 1976 and Appeal Case No.52 of 1982 to this Hon'ble Court to that conscionable justice may be administered by setting aside and/or quashing. the purported orders dated 2nd February, 1984, dated 19th September, 1981, dated 28th May, 1980 and dated 8th November, 1980 and the Notification No. 209/D.S.(N) U.L. (Cal)/6(1 )/27 Vol.2176 dated 16th July, 1982.

(c) A writ and/or in the nature of Prohibition calling upon the respondents each one of them, their servants and subordinates to forbear from proceeding further pursuant to the said Notification and the purported orders, and also not to proceed any further in pursuance of the said orders and purported Notification.

2. The writ petition was affirmed on 26.6.1984. On 9.10.2001 the petitioners filed an application for bringing subsequent events as part of records being CAN. No. 5701 of 2001 and prayed for allowing the same as part of the writ application. From the application for taking notice of subsequent events, it appears that statements made therein are facts which happened prior to the filing of writ petition i.e. 26.6.1984. In that view of the matter, the prayer for bringing on records, the subsequent events in terms of the order dated 9.10.2001 passed by the D.K. Seth, J. cannot be considered as subsequent events. This writ petition has been opposed by the respondents by filing an affidavit. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the appellate authority passed under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as said Act) which arose assailing the decision of the order dated 9.8.1981 passed by the competent authority, Calcutta, rejecting the appeal. The petitioner has also assailed the decision of the State Government refusing to allow “application for exemption of the land” in terms of Section 20 of the said Act. The application under Section 20 of the said Act praying for exemption was dismissed by the appropriate authority. It is submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of the lands, hence, ceiling limit as prescribed under the said act to retain quantum of vacant land ceiling limit of the said is not applicable. It is the further case that the petitioner has sold out different lands different to persons in terms of the contract. Therefore, such lands could not be included in the ceiling limit of the petitioner and as such is entitled to get exemption under the Act. It is further argued that the petitioner is the owner of the two premises one 39 Prince Golam Md. Shah Road and other 129, Prince Anwar Shah Road, which are already covered under the proceeding of the Land Acquisition Act and as such these lands cannot be considered as ‘land’ in terms of the said Act for declaring the same as 'vacant land' of the petitioner. This writ petition has been contested by the State Government contending that the petitioner did not take any point before the competent authority, so far as pendency of acquisition proceeding of the premises in respect of the said premises and as such aforesaid point as is raised for the first time herein cannot be considered. It is further