IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen WPA 12900 of 2014 With CAN 1 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 6888 of 2018)

With CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 6889 of 20185)

Shree Garden Resort Pvt. Ltd. Co. & Anr.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the petitioners : Mr. Goutam Kumar Das Mr. Indranuj Dutta Ms. Benazir Sk For the State : Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata Mr. Prasanta Behari Mahata For the respondent No. 7 : Mr. Rudra Sankar De

20.02.2025 Heard on :

Judgment on : 20.02.2025 PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:

1. By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus against the respondent authorities from giving effect to the registered deed of lease dated

06.09.2012 as has been executed by and between the lessor that is the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited, the respondent no. 7 herein and the lessee Ganapati Flour and Fruits (P) Ltd. that is the respondent no. 8 herein with further prayers namely; directing the respondents not to set up any commercial unit like flour mill/atta mill, accessories, spare parts and wheat products, etc. in the land of the writ petitioners, for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the lands of the writ petitioners and for other ancillary reliefs.

2. In course of hearing Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page nos. 36 to 39 of the of the instant writ petition being a copy of the relevant notification under Section 4 of Act I of 1894 as published by the Government of West Bengal in connection with LAP case no. 14/2006-07. It is submitted by Mr. Das that from internal page nos. 3 and 4 of the said notification it would reveal that plot no. 86 and Bata plot no. 86/332 in Mouza-Raisanda which belong to the writ petitioners are within the schedule of the said notification for acquisition. Drawing further attention to page nos. 40 to 43 it is submitted further on behalf of the writ petitioners that subsequently a declaration under Seciton 6 of the Act I of 1894 was made by the Government of West Bengal wherein the aforementioned two plot numbers were included.

3. It is further submitted by Mr. Das from the aforementioned two notifications it would reveal that the said acquisition process was made for public purpose only, however, in gross violation of the said pious purpose the respondent authorities had executed the said deed of lease dated 06.09.2012 to the private respondent no. 8. It is submitted further that both the State as well as the respondent no. 7, i.e., the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Corporation’ in short) had practically deviated the very purpose for which acquisition was made and, therefore, appropriate relief/reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioners pursuant to the prayers made in the writ petition.

4. In course of his submission Mr. Das places his reliance upon the following reported decisions namely, Shyam Behari & Ors vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 427, Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. & Anr. Vs. G. Jayarama Reddy & Ors. reported in (2011) 10 SCC 608 and Anil Agarwal Foundation Etc. Etc. vs. State of Orissa & Ors. reported in

2023 LiveLaw (SC) 300

5. In course of his submission Mr. Das submits that in the aforementioned three reported decisions it has been consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the event an acquisition has been done for a public purpose and by utilizing public money the acquired land cannot be disbursed in favour of a private individual or a private company for their commercial exploitation and, therefore, the acquisition proceeding ought to have been set aside keeping in mind the very basic principles of public policy.

6. Per contra, Mr. Mahata, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State a