SAILENDRA NATH MULLICK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sole shebait of the deity, Thakur Sri Sri Iswar Dhurjati Mahadeb. It has been claimed that premises No.36, Balgachia Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises), including the gardens and buildings, was dedicated by the maternal grand father of the petitioner to the said deity. Admittedly, on or about 8th September, 1972, a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1893, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), was published for the acquisition of the said premises in its entirety excepting certain undefined portion in the middle of the same, for construction of Mass Rapid Transit System. It is also true that thereafter, the petitioner filed an objection under section 5A of the said Act, claiming, inter alia, amongst others that the notification was bad, improper and void for non-specification of the portions sought to be acquired, duly.

(2.) Thereafter, on 7th December, 1974, the General Manager of the Metropolitan Transport Project (R), Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said Authority), addressed a letter modifying the scheme in question and thereby, releasing the tank, main building and the back portion of the said premises and mentioning that a 16 ft. wide access road from the Belgachia Main Road to the main building, would be provided to the petitioner. The above letter was disclosed by the learned Solicitor to the Central Government, to the petitioner during the pendency of Matter No.646 of 1973 (Sailendra Nath Mullick v. Union of India & Ors.), through the letter dated 17th February, 1975, so that on further consideration, the said Matter No.646 of 1973, could be disposed of on or by 18th February, 1975. In fact, the said Rule, which was obtained against the acquisition proceedings and was pending, was disposed of on 17th January, 1975, on the following amongst other terms : -

(3.) It has been stated further that the said Authority, on consideration of the matter, decided to provide with 16 ft. wide access, direct from the Belgachia Main Road to the building in question, to avoid any further litigation. In fact, it appeared that the petitioner wrote a letter on 29th August, 1979 to the General Manager of the said Authority, pointing out therein about providing permanently, 18 ft. wide passage, for facilitating his access to the building in question. In fact, it also appeared from the letter in question that the petitioner asked for 20 ft. wide access, directly from Belgachia Main Road to the building in question, when the said Authority according to the petitioner agreed to provide a 16 ft. wide access. In fact, it was claimed by the petitioner, that the said Authority, on reconsideration, had agreed to provide for a 18 ft. access, instead of 20 ft. The relevant statements as aforesaid, have been denied by the said Authority, claiming them to be incorrect. It has been stated that the terms of compromise as was done or filed in the proceedings, was amongst others to make a provision for a 4 meter wide road and as such, the question of providing a 18 ft. wide passage did not arise at all.