IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Soumen Sen, Ajoy Mukherjee, JJ.
Kahm Industries Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. And Others - Respondent
FMAT No. 612, 698, 699, 752, 753 of 2021, I.A No. CAN 1 of 2021
Decided On : 05-04-2022
Compensation - Property Dispute - Land Acquisition Act - Summary: The dispute involved the right to receive compensation for a property in Kolkata. The court discussed the deed of conveyance, agreement, and power of attorney, and their implications on the right to receive compensation. The court found that the cancellation of the power of attorney was illegal and established a clear right for the party to receive the compensation. The court permitted the party to retain and utilize the compensation amount upon furnishing security.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute revolved around the right to receive compensation for a property in Kolkata. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was threatening to close a designated bank account to prevent the plaintiff from receiving the compensation amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the power of attorney was illegal and established a clear right for the party to receive the compensation. The court permitted the party to retain and utilize the compensation amount upon furnishing security.
Issues: The main issue was the right to receive compensation for the property and the legality of the cancellation of the power of attorney.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cancellation of the power of attorney was illegal and established a clear right for the party to receive the compensation. The court permitted the party to retain and utilize the compensation amount upon furnishing security.
Final Decision: The appeals and cross-appeals along with all the connected applications were disposed of. The department was directed to send down LCR at the earliest. The Registrar administration was to ensure compliance. However, there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Soumen Sen, J. - In view of the similarities and commonalities of the issues involved, the appeal, cross-appeal and all connected applications, by consent of the parties, are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
The dispute is concerning the right to receive compensation in respect of premises situated at 13 Nellie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata 700087, (in short, 'said premises').
KaHM Industries Private Limited (formerly known as 'Lindsay Tower Private Limited') (in short 'the KaHM') is claiming to be the owner of the said property purchased under a deed of conveyance dated 5th april, 2003 from Punalur Paper Mills Limited, in short, 'the Punalur'.
The deed of conveyance refers to three schedules. The First Schedule describes the land together with structure. The Second Schedule has two parts: Part I gives the detailed description and particulars of the portions under the possession of different occupiers and Part II gives the details of writ applications and other legal proceedings pending before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in relation to the said property. The third schedule gives the list of tenants.
Presently, we are concerned with the compensation received in connection with the acquisition proceedings which are described in Part II of the second schedule. It provides particulars of the proceedings initiated by Punalur against the State of West Bengal in respect of the Notification issued under Section 4 and Declaration under Section 6 of the Land acquisition act in concerning the basement, ground-floor, second-floor and a portion of the fifth floor amongst others of the premises in question.
The deed of conveyance also refers to a compromise decree dated 24th March, 2003 passed in C.S. No.59 of 2003 by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 4th March, 2002 and for other reliefs, whereby Punalur was directed to complete the sale and/or transfer of the 'said premises' in favour of the KaHM at a total consideration of Rs. 4.50 crores and Punalur was required to take appropriate steps within six months from the date of execution of the Deed of Conveyance, to recover the vacant and peaceful possession of the 'said portions in possession of the occupiers', described in Part I of the Second Schedule. The said deed of conveyance has clearly stated that KaHM shall be solely and exclusively be entitled to receive an appropriate amount of compensation pending before the Court at the time or as may hereafter become payable on account of and in respect of the 'said portions in possession of the occupiers' as more fully described in Part I of the Second Schedule, which at the relevant time were subject matter of writ applications filed against the State Government concerning acquisition and requisition of the said portions of the property.
after the said agreement on 15th May, 2010, Mr. Kunal Dalmia and his associates representing about 52.76 per cent of the equity of Punalur decided to sell their shareholdings in favour of third parties. accordingly an agreement was entered into on 15th May, 2010 between Punalur and KaHM which not only acknowledges that the third parties became the majority shareholder of Punalur but also reaffirms and reiterates that KaHM would have the right to prosecute and/or defend all litigations and/or proceedings concerning the acquisition proceedings and would have the exclusive right to receive and recover the compensation amount in respect of portions of the suit property which were the subject matter of litigations in the name of Punalur but at its cost, and for such purposes KaHM would be entitled to operate a separate Bank account being No.0015-608737-060 (previous account no. 200001818875) with M/s. IndusInd Bank Limited situated at 3a Upper Wood Street Branch, Kolkata 700017, albeit in the name of Punalur for the purpose of depositing, realizing and encashing the amount of such compensation and any other amount as ma
Baburao vs. State of Maharashtra
Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (1999) 7 SCC 1 : AIR 1999 SC 3105
Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad and Ors. vs. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead) thr. Lrs. and Ors. 2005 11 SCC 314
The cancellation of the power of attorney was illegal and established a clear right for the party to receive the compensation. The court permitted the party to retain and utilize the compensation amo....
An agency coupled with an interest cannot be revoked to the prejudice of the agent's interest without an express contract.
The court affirmed that plaintiffs not included in original acquisition proceedings can claim their share of compensation through independent civil suits despite the Land Acquisition Act's provisions....
Only those with registered titles have the legal entitlement to compensation under land acquisition proceedings, and claims for common areas must be substantiated by clear legal doctrines.
Land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) if compensation is deposited in court, even if possession is not taken, unless the landowners can prove deprivation of compensation.
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.