The government has the authority to issue notifications permitting the transfer and change of purpose of land, and such notifications will not be quashed unless they are shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

Headnote:
LAND USE - CHANGE OF PURPOSE - TRANSFER OF LEASEHOLD INTEREST - [KEYWORD] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner association challenged the transfer of leasehold interest in a plot of land from Nightingale Diagnostic and Eye Care Research Center Private Limited to Synergy IT Infrastructure Private Limited and two notifications issued by the Government of West Bengal permitting the transfer and change of purpose of the land from a hospital to IT/ITeS purposes. The petitioner contended that the plot was originally earmarked as a park, that the change of purpose was not permissible under the lease deed, and that the transfer caused substantial loss to the government exchequer.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plot was never earmarked as a park, but was initially designated as "reserved for future use" and later classified as a commercial property in the second working plan. The court also found that the government had the authority to issue the notifications permitting the transfer and change of purpose, and that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the notifications were arbitrary or unreasonable.
Issues: 1. Whether the plot of land was originally earmarked as a park.2. Whether the change of purpose from a hospital to IT/ITeS purposes was permissible under the lease deed.3. Whether the transfer of leasehold interest caused substantial loss to the government exchequer.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the working plans and other evidence to conclude that the plot was never earmarked as a park, but was initially designated as "reserved for future use" and later classified as a commercial property.2. The court held that the lease deed did not prohibit the change of purpose from a hospital to IT/ITeS purposes, as the original allotment was for a non-residential purpose.3. The court found that the petitioner had not provided any evidence to support its claim that the transfer of leasehold interest caused substantial loss to the government exchequer.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that the petitioner had not established any grounds for relief.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. Sivagnanam, CJ.)

1. 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 Page 3 of 16 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 Page 4 of 16 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 re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Online)(CAL) 7083

The government has the authority to issue notifications permitting the transfer and change of purpose of land, and such notifications will not be quashed unless they are shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

Login now and unlock premium legal research