IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Shivakant Prasad, J.
M/s. Bansilal Leisure Parks Ltd. formerly known as Bansilal Leisure Parks Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal and others - Opposite Parties
C.O. No. 1375 of 2014
Decided On : 17-9-2015
M/s. Bansilal Leisure Parks Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal - Court held that the petitioner was in possession of the suit premises as a licensee to conduct the business of entertainment park and the State authorities tried to take possession by encircling the property with police personnel and preventing the petitioner from entering into the premises.
Fact of the Case:
M/s. Bansilal Leisure Parks Ltd. filed a suit for declaration and injunction on 20th April, 2013 in the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 2nd Court at Barasat, North 24-Parganas against the opposite parties with the leave of the court under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and also filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of a news item in a local daily newspaper in April, 2010 that the State of West Bengal being the second defendant has prepared a plan to establish a tourism project in the suit property.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner was in possession of the suit premises as a licensee to conduct the business of entertainment park by virtue of agreement entered by and between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. The Court also found that the State authorities tried to take possession by encircling the property with police personnel and preventing the petitioner from entering into the premises.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was in possession of the suit premises as a licensee to conduct the business of entertainment park? 2. Whether the State authorities tried to take possession by encircling the property with police personnel and preventing the petitioner from entering into the premises?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner was in possession of the suit premises as a licensee to conduct the business of entertainment park by virtue of agreement entered by and between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. 2. The Court also held that the State authorities tried to take possession by encircling the property with police personnel and preventing the petitioner from entering into the premises.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 23rd April, 2014 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 15th Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No. 107 of 2013. The Court also affirmed the Judgment and order No. 8 dated 17th May, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Barsat in Title Suit No. 80 of 2013.
Shivakant Prasad, J.
Challenge in this application is against the judgment and order dated 23rd April, 2014 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 15th Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No. 107 of 2013 arising out of the Judgment and order No. 8 dated 17th May, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Barsat in Title Suit No. 80 of 2013.
2. The plaintiff/petitioner, M/s. Bansilal Leisure Parks Ltd. a private limited company, filed the above mentioned suit praying, inter alia, for a decree of declaration about its right and authority to run the business over the suit property and for permanent injunction.
3. The plaintiff/petitioner alleged that the State Fisheries Development Corporation Limited invited offer in the newspaper on 15th June, 1990 and asked sealed offer for setting up of public entertainment-cum-tourist project. The plaintiff submitted offer and the same was accepted by the defendant No. 1 and accordingly an agreement was entered into by and between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 on 12th March, 1991.
4. In the said agreement, the petitioner was given the right to use and occupy the surface water area of the fishery known as "Nalbon Fisheries" and also to use appurtenant land of the project and to set up temporary structure in connection with the said project. It is contended that the petitioner proposed to initially start with 12 cottages of different types in the first year and also to put up more cottage in the subsequent year.
5. Thereafter a second agreement was entered into on 23rd September, 1998 and under Paragraph 2 of the said agreement, the petitioner was allowed to use the appurtenant land of the project "for general activities of their project and may set up temporary and permanent structure for use of its office, ticket counters, guard room, gates, boundary wall, fencing......."
6. There was a third agreement between the parties on 24th December, 2010 which was a really one for renewal or extension of the agreement already entered into for a period of 30 years with effect from 01.4.2010.
7. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction on 20th April, 2013 in the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 2nd Court at Barasat, North 24-Parganas against the opposite parties with the leave of the court under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and also filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of a news item in a local daily newspaper in April, 2010 that the State of West Bengal being the second defendant has prepared a plan to establish a tourism project in the suit property and as the petitioner became apprehensive in respect of its right title and possession and a notice along with the said application and the plaint were served upon the opposite parties in compliance of the court's order dated 20th April, 2013.
8. According to the State, the suit property has been vested to it under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 and that too free from all encumbrances. After such vesting, the State never parted with possession over the suit property in favour of the first defendant i.e. Fisheries Development Corporation and whatever agreement the plaintiff company may have entered into with such defendant does not bind the State. The State/respondent would also contend that the law is on its side when it wishes to use the suit property for public welfare non obstante the plaintiff's possession over the same which is described as illegal and unlawful.
9. The Fisheries Development Corporation being the first defendant contended before the learned Trial Court to this effect that although three agreements relied upon by the plaintiff company admitted to have been entered by and between the first defendant and the plaintiff but by the said agreements plaintiff is a mere licensee in the suit property whose license was liable to be revoked without any notice
Lallu Yeshwant Singh (dead) by his legal representative v. Rao Jagdish Singh
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.