The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Municipal Commissioner has a statutory duty to consider representations and decide on alleged violations of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and must form a conclusive opinion on compliance with the Act's provisions.

Harish Tandon, J.

The present writ petition is filed for a direction upon the corporation authorities to take steps for demolition of the illegal construction and stoppage of the illegal running of the private market on the lands of the petitioner comprised in R.S. Plot No. 126/165 and 124/167 of Mouza-Barakhola, G.L. No. 21, P.S. Purba Jadavpur, Dist. South 24 Parganas, measuring about 100 kathas.

2. The facts pleaded in the writ petition are that one Gangadas Paul was the recorded owner of 43.76 acres, more or less, of various classes of land situated at Mouza-Barakhola, P.S. Purba Jadavpur and in other mouzas in the District of South 24 Parganas. At the time of revisional settlement, those lands have been recorded in the name of the said owner and were classified as sali, jungle, vita, khal bill etc. The said Gangadas Paul died in the year 1958 leaving behind him surviving one son and three daughters namely Debabrata Sen, Sulekha Paul (Dey), Illa Basu Chowdhury, Reba Rani Ghosh.

3. A partition suit was filed being Title Suit No. 38 of 1962 in the Court of 3rd Judge at Alipore, which was decreed on compromise on 14th March, 1966. A Big Raiyat Case was started being BR Case No. 5 of 1967 and the notice was served upon the aforesaid heirs. In the meantime, an agreement for sale was entered into between the aforesaid heirs and West Bengal Employees (Food and Supply) Co-operative Housing Society Limited on 13th March, 1968 for sale of 85 bighas of land comprised in Mouza Barakhola.

4. The Big Raiyat case was taken up by the revenue officer and by an order dated 16th September, 1961, all the lands belonging to the deceased owner was vested with the State as the intermediaries did not exercise their choice of retention. After the vesting order was passed, the State Government settled the land with the said Co-operative Housing Society Limited. It is stated that though the order of vesting was passed but no notice under Section 10(2) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 was served for taking possession of the land from the owners. In the meantime, all the four heirs executed an agreement for sale on 7th September, 1989 in favour of the petitioner no. 1 herein for sale of aforesaid 85 bighas of land and received the earnest money of Rs. 50,000/-. Since, the land was settled by the State Government in favour of the said Cooperative Housing Society Limited treating the aforesaid land as vested land, the order of vesting passed by the revenue officer was challenged in writ petition being Civil Order No. 11737(W) of 1991 before this Court. The Co-operative Housing Society Limited was subsequently added as respondent in the said writ petition. By a judgment and order dated 24th September, 1992 the Single Bench allowed the said writ petition as a consequence whereof the order of vesting passed by the revenue officer was set aside. The Single Bench however granted leave to the said heirs to file 'B' Form indicating their choice of retention of land under the provisions of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 within a period of 6 weeks from date. The said form was filed in terms of the liberty granted in the said order indicating the choice of retention of land to the permissible extent.

5. In the meantime, the Co-operative Housing Society Limited challenged the order of the Single Bench in an Intra Court Appeal being FMAT 3357 of 1992 and simultaneously the State of West Bengal also challenged the self same order by filing FMA 3391 of 1992 before the Division Bench. Both the appeals were taken up together and by a common judgment were dismissed. The order of the Division Bench was further challenged both by the Co-operative Housing Society Limited as well as the State of West Bengal before the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petitions, which were registered as C.A. 12509 of 1996 and C.A. 442 of 1998 respectively. The Special Leave Petitions were admitted and were assigned regular numbers. Amidst the pendency of t