JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. The petitioners case is that one Chhabi Rani Dutta and Rajendra Lal Dutta were original owners of the land at 23, Radhamadhab Dutta Lane, Kolkata and said land was sub-divided into different plots and the original owners granted lease to different persons. The vacant land in question in respect of the plot being plot no. 23E, was granted lease in favour of Mr. Jayanta Basu for a period of 99 years on 26.09.1968 by a registered deed. Petitioner’s further case is said Jayanta Basu thereafter inducted Sri Manik Sarkar the predecessor of present petitinoers in the said leasehold vacant land as monthly tenant on and form 1st April, 1974 at a monthly rent of Rs. 110/-. Said Manik Sarkar thereafter raised temporary construction and was carrying business therein. On 09.05.1975 said lessee Jayanta Basu created equitable mortgage by deposit of original lease deed with Allahabad Bank.

2. Petitioner’s further case is that said premises was vested upon the Government of West Bengal under Kolkata Thika and other Tenancies and Lands (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981, (hereafter called as Act of 1981) with effect from 2nd November, 1981 when petitioners’ predecessor Manik was in continuous possession of the said premises by making construction of temporary structure. He filed return for Thika Tenancy in accordance with the provision of Rule 3(a) of Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquistion and Regulation) Rules, 1982. Manik all along carried on business at the said premises peacefully as a Thika Tenant under the Government of West Bengal.

3. Petitioner’s further case is in the month of March 2007, they came to know that the said thika tenanted property was going to be sold in terms of order of the Recovery Officer, DRT-I in compliance with the judgment and certificate issued by the presiding officer in T.A. no. 134 of 1995. Petitioner’s further case is that in the said proceeding the petitioner’s predecessor was not made a party. Thereafter vide recovery proceeding being R.P no. 45 of 1999, the Recovery Officer issued sale notice for auction of the said property. It is submitted that the entire property involved in the case was vested with the State by operation of law and the Bank being a Public Sector undertaking and being a creature of statute cannot claim any stake over a vested property. Petitioner’s further case is that petitioner‘s predecessor Manik filed an application before the Recovery Officer as intervener since the petitioner was in possession of the premises as tenant/sub lessee in terms of agreement of transfer of leasehold right in respect or the said premises, being executed in the year 1974. However said application as intervener was rejected by an order dated 24.07.2007

4. Petitioner’s further case is that the Controller, Kolkata Thika Tenancy, while disposing Mis Case nos. 79 & 80 of 2007 arisiing out of Return filed by Manik, declared the petitioner’s aforesaid predecessor as the Thika Tenant in respect of the said structure made therein. The aforesaid lessee Jayanta Basu contested the said proceeding before the Controller. Petitioner’s further case is their predecessor Manik being declared as Thika Tenant, mutated his name and also complied all other necessary formalities to that effect. Petitioner’s predecessor being aggrieved by sale notice also filed an application on 05.07.2016 before the Recovery Officer praying for recalling the order of attachment and sale in respect of the said premises, since the petitioner is a Thika Tenant and the property in question has vested in the State since promulgation of the Act of 1981 on and from 2nd November, 1981. However Recovery Officer rejected the said application on 25.07.2016. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner have made several attempts to ventilate his grievances against the said impugned order of Recovery Officer dated 17.02.2017 that the petitioner nor there predecessor took loan nor stood as guarantor of the said loan and