Timely petitions must not raise issues not argued in previous proceedings; meritorious cases should not be delayed indefinitely.

Mr. Pankaj Halder Mr. Subhendu Bhattacharya Mr. Sanatan Patra Mr. Tapas Manna …..For the Petitioner Mr. Ashok Kr. Banerjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Satyajit Talukdar Mr. Arindam Chatterjee ….For the KMDA Mr. Joydeep Kar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sirsanya Bandhapadhyay Mr. Chandi Charan De Ms. Sonal Sinha Mr. Anirban Sarkar Ms. Shabnam Farooqui …..For the State Mr. Tapas Kr. Sinha …..For the Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 Petitioner’s father, namely, Paramananda Bose was absolute owner of the Premises No. 21, Chetla Central Road, Kolkata – 700 027. He submitted a return under Section 6 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 before the competent authority. The competent authority has prepared a draft statement under Section 8 (1) of the said Act and served upon Paramananda Bose. Said Paramananda Bose raised objection under Section 8 (3) of the said Act before the authority. On such objection a hearing was done by the competent authority. By an order dated 23^rd of July, 1980 the competent authority has held that Paramananda Bose has held an area the ceiling limit of vacant land measuring 2524.60 sq. meter. Against such order the said Paramananda Bose preferred a writ petition thereby on the direction of the writ court an appeal has been preferred under Section 33 of the said Act, 1976. The appellate authority has heard Paramananda Bose and disposed of the appeal by passing an order dated 16^th of November, 1988. Thereby it has been ordered by the appellate authority that an area of 802.96 sq. meter of excess vacant land at premises no.21, Chetla Central Road is held by Paramananda Bose. Thereafter the competent authority had proceeded to issue final statement under Section

9 of the said Act.

Paramananda Bose, father of the petitioner challenged the said order passed by the appellate authority as well as the statement under Section 9 of the competent authority through a writ petition being W. P. No. 1504 of 1999. During the pendency of the said writ petition a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ petition for default by an order dated 21^st September, 2003 as no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the date of hearing. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner Paramananda Bose executed deed of sale in favour of Fighters Loding Syndicate Pvt. Ltd.

through a registered deed of sale.

It is the contention of the petitioner that the order passed by the appellate authority in appeal case no. 47 of 1981 under Section 33 of the said Act is illegal and required to be set aside.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State authority submits that there is no reason before this court to entertain the writ petition filed after a long period of time. He further submits that the order was passed in the year 1988 and it has been now challenged in the year 2024. He further submits that father of the petitioner though challenged the order by filing a writ petition being W. P. 1504 of 1999 but it was dismissed for default; without setting aside or recalling the order of dismissal. This court cannot entertain the writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties it appears that the order of appellate authority passed under Section 33 of the said Act, 1976 is under challenge by the petitioner in the year 2024.

Truly speaking I find no merit or pleadings in the writ petition to justify how the petitioner came after so long time before this court to challenge an order passed by a competent authority under Section 33 of the said Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner was thrown out from this court, he would be non-suited.

Considering the submission I proceeded to hear the petitioner. The merit of the petitioner to challenge the order of the appellate authority is that the appellate authority has not considered the definition of “vacant land” as enumerated under Section 2 (q) of the said Act, 1976. It is the contention of the petitioner that at the time of making obje