JUDGMENT :

1. Three writ petitions have been taken up for final hearing as they involve similar issues.

2. The issue that has fallen for consideration in these three writ petitions is whether the respondent authorities can charge compensation in terms of Clause 6.2.2.2(e) and Clause 6.2.2.3(g) of the Land Policy Guidelines, 2010 and TAMP Order No. TAMP/18/2011-Gen. dated July 26, 2011 or not.

3. W.P. No. 771 of 2012 is at the behest of the Cossipore Commercial Society and others. For the sake of convenience, the writ petitioners in such writ petition are referred to as the Cossipore Commercial Society. Learned Advocate appearing for Cossipore Commercial Society has submitted that, Kolkata Port Trust (KoPT) had offered lease in respect of two adjoining plots for a period of 20 years with effect from September 24, 1990 to Cossipore Commercial Society on September 21, 1990. KoPT had handed over possession in respect of the first plot on November 17, 1990 and the second plot on January 4, 1991. KoPT authorities however did not execute any formal lease deed except issuing a letter dated September 21, 1990 of the Land Manager, KoPT which is at page 58 of the writ petition. According to him, Cossipore Commercial Society and KoPT proceeded on the basis of the relationship created by the letter of the Land Manager of KoPT dated September 21, 1990. Cossipore Commercial Society had applied for renewal of the lease before its expiry. KoPT did not respond to such application. KoPT had raised bills on the basis of the schedule of rent, on Cossipore Commercial Society from time to time. The rent was increased from time to time by KoPT. Cossipore Commercial Society paid such rent. On and from June 2012, KoPT started charging compensation charges on Cossipore Commercial Society on the basis of Clause 6.2.2.2(e) and Clause 6.2.2.3(g) of the Land Policy Guidelines, 2012 and TAMP Order No. TAMP/18/2011-Gen. dated July 26, 2011. Learned Advocate appearing for Cossipore Commercial Society has submitted that, KoPT authorities are not entitled to charge compensation charges on the rent bill of the petitioner. Cossipore Commercial Society should be treated as a monthly tenant with no formal lease of deed being executed. Such tenancy not being terminated in accordance with law, Cossipore Commercial Society cannot be treated as an unauthorised occupant. The question of attraction of the Land Policy Guidelines, 2012 and the TAMP Order dated July 26, 2011 in such facts scenario does not arise. The claim for compensation charges raised by KoPT has no foundational basis. Such component of the bills should be quashed.

4. Learned Advocate appearing for Cossipore Commercial Society has submitted that, Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that a lease for one year and above is compulsorily registrable. He has referred to Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 in such aspect. According to him, since no formal deed was either executed or registered, the relationship between the Cossipore Commercial Society and KoPT has to be treated on the basis of the letter dated September 21, 1990 which is at page 58 of the writ petition. He has relied upon. Biswabani Pvt. Ltd. vs. Santosh Kumar Dutta and Others, (1980) AIR SC 226 and submitted that, an unregistered lease deed for a period of one year and above allows an inference that, there is a tenancy on month to month basis. Relying upon - Pieco Electronics and Electricals Ltd. vs. Smt. Tribeni Devi, (1990) AIR Calcutta 135 and he has submitted that, no ejectment can be made on the basis of the determination clause in an unregistered deed. KoPT authorities despite the interim order passed by the High Court, did not initiate any eviction proceedings under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. Therefore, Cossipore Commercial Society cannot be treated as an unauthorised occupant in respect of any of the two plots of land in question. He has referred to