MOLOY KUMAR DAS Vs. KRISHNA CHANDRA ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals were heard together, one after the other, as those arise out of the same proceeding under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act ( Act ) and to some extent, are interlinked.

(2.) APOT no. 263 of 2010 is at the instance of a third party in a proceeding under Section 34 of the Act who has been admittedly dispossessed by the Special Officer appointed by the Court in the proceedings, and is directed against order dated August 16 & 17, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship disposed of two applications filed by the appellant, being GA no.1469 of 2006 and GA no.2478 of 2009, by giving leave to the appellant to approach appropriate forum for establishing his legal right in the property and also giving him liberty to file appropriate application seeking leave to sue the Special Officer, if necessary. The learned Single Judge, however, directed return of the machineries belonging to the appellant to him which were lying in the symbolic possession of the Special Officer and physical possession of the Applicant under Section 34 of the Act after making inventory of those articles. The other appeal being APOT no.163 of 2011 is at the instance of a promoter whose bid to promote the property which is the subject-matter of the application under Section 34 of the Act was found to be the highest and consequently, was selected by the court in the past for development, and is directed against order dated March 3, 2011 passed by the selfsame learned Single Judge by which His Lordship refused prayer (b) of the application being GA no. 3752 of 2006 filed by the applicant under Section 34 of the Act by which he prayed for direction upon the Special Officer to deliver possession of the entire premises in question to the appellant after acceptance of his offer with police help. His Lordship while refusing such prayer restrained the appellant and the applicant under Section 34 of the Act as well as the Special Officer from transferring or alienating any portion of the building and land appertained thereto to anyone without the leave of the Court until the Kolkata Municipal Corporation decided the question as to whether the developer constructed the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation was directed to report within six months on the said question.

(3.) The facts giving rise to filing of these appeals may be summed up thus: