SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Cal) 1498

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J., HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Ajay Kumar Mishra - Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal And Others - Respondents
WPA 4014 of 2011, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2011 (OLD NO. CAN 7477 of 2011), WPA 7176 of 2012
Decided On : 30-11-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Adv., Mr. Tirthankar Dey, Adv., Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Saptangsu Basu, Ld. Senior Adv., Mr. Kumar Gupta, Adv., Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Binay Kumar Jain, Adv., Mr. Piyush Jain, Adv.

The court upheld the government's authority to change land use from hospital to IT services, affirming that the original allotment was valid and notifications were legally issued.

Headnote:(A) West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979 - Writ petitions to quash government notifications allowing land transfer for IT use - Petitioners argued land designated as park cannot be converted for commercial use - Court found original allotment for hospital purpose valid and notifications legally issued. (Paras 4, 10, 15, 20)

(B) Land Use - Change of land use from hospital to IT services considered permissible by government policy, retaining the commercial character of the plot. (Paras 10, 12, 20)

(C) Judicial Review - Scope of judicial review in administrative decisions limited; petitioners failed to demonstrate illegality in government actions. (Paras 12, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, a residents’ association, challenged the transfer of land originally allotted for hospital use to IT services, claiming it violated planning regulations and caused community nuisance.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the government's notifications permitting the land transfer, emphasizing the validity of the original lease and the commercial nature of the land.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the land use change and whether the government notifications were arbitrary.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the government had the authority to change land use based on policy decisions, and the petitioners did not provide sufficient grounds for overturning the notifications.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(T.S. Sivagnanam, C.J.)

Since the prayer sought for in both the writ petitions are more or less identical and concerns the very same property, the writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. At the request of the learned advocates appearing for the writ petitioner WP No. 7176 (W) of 2012 is taken as the lead case and the facts stated therein are noted which would suffice for arriving at the decision in both the writ petitions.

3. We have heard Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Mr. Anish Chakrabory, advocates appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Mr. Tirthankar Dey and Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, advocates appearing for the respondents, Mr. Saptangsu Basu, Ld. Senior Advocate, Mr. Kumar Gupta, Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Mr. Binay Kumar Jain and Mr. Piyush Jian advocates appearing for the respondent no. 4 and for the respondent no. 9.

4. The writ petitioner is an association consisting of residence in the HB Block in Salt Lake, Kolkata. The association has prayed for an issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the Memo dated 25.02.2010 permitting the transfer and change of the original purpose of the land being HV 334, Sector III, Salt Lake City to the 9th Respondent M/s. Synergy IT Infrastructure Private Limited and the two notifications issued earlier by the Government of West Bengal dated 06.05.2005. The Government of West Bengal Urban Development Department by order dated 10.03.1993 allotted 33 cottahs of land in Plot No. 334 Block HV in Sector III in Bidhannagar to the Nightingale Diagnostic and Eye Care Research Center Private Limited for a period of 999 years on payment of a provisional salami of Rs. 30,000/- per cottah for the purpose of construction of a hospital. The allotee was directed to make requisite deposit and it was ordered that unless the full amount is paid within 90 days from the date of issue of allotment order, interest will be charged at the rate of 7% per annum for the first two years and 10% per annum for the third year. Upon payment of the amount possession of the plot will be given to the allotee after the execution and registration of the lease deed on usual terms and conditions. One of the conditions in the letter of allotment was that the allotee shall reserve 10% of the hospital beds for the needy and deserving patients and only would be referred by the Government of West Bengal and shall provide free treatment to 40 patients as already proposed by the allotee in their letter dated 07.05.1992. The said allotee had paid the entire salami and the lease was entered into between the State and the allotee on 12.01.1995. The allotee was put in possession of the property. Some of the relevant covenants in the lease deed were that the allotee has to construct the building in conformity with the building rules as may from time to time be framed by the Government or other authority prescribed in that behalf and according to the plans, specifications, elevations, designs and sections sanctioned by the authority within three years from the date of possession of the land or such extended time as may be allowed by the Government in writing. Clause 8 of the lease deed stipulated that the lessee/allotee shall not assign or transfer the land or any part of the land or structure retained thereon without the previous permission of the Government in writing. In case of transfer or assignment of the lease, the lessor shall have the right of pre-emption and upon the exercise of this right, the building constructed by the lessee on the land shall be taken over by the lessor (Government) at a valuation of the building made by the lessor on the basis of the cost of construction of the building less depreciation at the usual rate or market value thereof, whichever is less. Clause 9 states that the allotee shall not use or allow to use the land or the structure thereon or any part thereof for any purpose other than the residential purpose without the prior permission in wri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top