DHANOMOY THAPA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is being heard on notice to the respondents and on contest by them. In this application the petitioner is disputing the validity of a proceeding under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 and an order dated July 5, 1971 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 7 of the Act.

(2.) Facts are shortly as follows: On an application by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta a proceeding under Section 3 of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was initiated against the present petitioner. The dispute relates to plot No. 54 in the Cossipore/Chitpore open space at Talla Park since renumbered as No. 6, Talla Park Avenue. There is no dispute that this plot which belongs to respondents Nos. 7 to 9 is still under requisition by State of West Bengal. In the said proceeding under Section 3, on a due notice issued to the petitioner the collector held the necessary adjudication on June 11, 1964 passed an order under Section 4 (1) (a) directing petitioner's eviction therefrom. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal Case No. 39 of 1964-65 before the Commissioner. Presidency Division. Although she succeeded at first and the appellate tribunal by an order dated February 8, 1965 set aside the order of the Collector, on review by an order dated July 31. 1965 the appellate tribunal confirmed the order of eviction passed by the collector. The petitioner moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution and my learned brother P.K. Banerjee, J. by an order dated June 26, 1970 set aside the appellate order and directed rehearing of the appeal. The appeal being so reheard has again been dismissed by the impugned order dated July 5, 1971 and the Commissioner has now re-affirmed the original order of eviction passed by the Collector. It is this proceeding and the order which are the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) The application is being contested both by the State as also by respondent Nos. 7-9 who were allowed to be made parties to the proceeding by the lower Appellate Tribunal.