JUDGMENT :

BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the State-respondents in determining the lease and taking over possession of the plot being of premises No.CK 186, Sector-II, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064 allotted in favour of the petitioner.

The brief fact of the case is as follows. A Lease Deed was executed for residential purpose by and between the State of West Bengal and the writ petitioner on 28th March, 1984 in respect of premises No.CK 186, Sector-II, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. The possession of the said premises was handed over to the petitioner on 24^th May, 1985. As per the lease deed the petitioner was supposed to complete the work of construction within a period of 3 years from date of delivery of possession. By notice dated 10^th September, 2007, the lease was determined, since the petitioner failed to make construction within the stipulated period. A sign board was affixed on the premises on or about November, 2016 declaring that the premises is a “Government Land”. Being aggrieved by such action of the State- respondents, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

The State-respondents contested the writ petition by filing its affidavit-in-opposition denying, inter alia, the allegations made in the writ petition and contended as follows. As per Clause 2(6)(a) of the Lease Deed, the writ petitioner was required to complete the work of construction within a period of 3 years from date of taking over possession of the said plot, i.e. from 24^th May, 1985 to 24^th May, 1988. However, no work of construction was made for a period of almost 11 years since the plot was demised. On 11th June 1996, on the prayer of the writ petitioner, one year extension of time was allowed to petitioner to complete the work of construction of the residential building. However, in spite of such extension of time, the writ petitioner failed to construct the residential building. Accordingly, on 10th September, 2007 peremptory notice was issued invoking Clause 4 of the Lease Deed to remedy the breach caused by the writ petitioner violating Clause 2(6)(a) of the Lease Deed. Paper publication was also made for causing service of such notice upon the writ petitioner. Since the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed and also did not remedy the breach caused, the lease was determined. Therefore, such action of the State-respondents does not call for interference. In light of the above, the writ petition should be dismissed in limine.

Mr. Debdut Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the State-respondents have re-entered into the demised plot, without affording any opportunity to the writ petitioner to remedy the breach. He also indicates that a sign board has been affixed in the said plot of land declaring the same to be “Government land”. As per Clause 4 of the Lease Deed prior to exercising the right to re-enter into possession of the demised land upon determination of the lease, the lessor is required to serve the lessee a notice in writing giving six months’ time to remedy the breach. In the present case, no such notice was ever served upon the writ petitioner prior to re-entry into possession of the demised land. Therefore, the action of the State- respondents of re-entering into possession of the plot-in- question is illegal and beyond the scope of the Lease Deed. To buttress his contention, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in Sanjiv Bhagat & Anr. versus Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors. in Civil Writ Petition No.25947 of 2012. He seeks for removal of the sign board affixed on the premises and also for extension of time to complete the work of construction.

On the contrary, Mr. Naba Kumar Das, learned Advocate appearing for the State-respondents submit that there has been a violation of the terms and conditions of the Lea