AVA RANI DUTTA Vs. 1ST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners are the successors of late Ganesh Chandra Dutta who was a tenant since 1957 in respect of eastern portion of 2nd floor at premises No.14, Hare Street, Kolkata 700001 measuring about 1200 sq.ft. more or less under his landlord, Prafulla Charan Law, since deceased.

(2.) The writ petitioners filed this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents being State authorities to hand over the de-requisitioned area of the premises being the eastern portion of 2nd floor at 14, Hare Street, Kolkata 700001 to the petitioners and to assess the rent compensation payable to the petitioners and also for making such payment. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta, since deceased, was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Benod Behari Nag and Ganesh Chandra Dutta from the aforementioned tenanted premises. It was submitted that a notice bearing No. 132/59 REQN dated 30th September 1959 under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1947 was issued for the purpose of requisitioning the premises in question and a direction was given in the said notice to the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta, since deceased, to hand over the possession of the tenanted premises on September 30, 1959 at 4.30 p.m. or on any subsequent date. In compliance with the said notice, possession of the said tenanted premises was handed over to the respondents. Thereafter, the First Land Acquisition Collector, Government of West Bengal, assessed rent compensation for the said premises and the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta during his life time was receiving rent compensation at the rate of Rs.164.00 per month. Ganesh Chandra Dutta died intestate on 25th December 1994 leaving behind him surviving legal heirs and representatives who are the petitioners herein. It was contended that rent compensation was received by the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta till January 1994. Thereafter, no further rent compensation was paid. However, the petitioners on enquiry came to know that the rent compensation was enhanced by an order of this Hon'ble Court at the rate of Rs.10.00 per sq.ft. and they are entitled to get the rent at the same rate for 1200 sq.ft. area against which Ganesh Chandra Dutta was a tenant.

(3.) On or about 21st September 2011, the petitioners were informed by one of the shop owners that the office of the West Bengal Ceramic Development Corporation Ltd. was closed and some persons claiming to be the officers of the Land Acquisitions Collector, Kolkata came to the said premises and handed over possession of the entire portion of the premises to the representatives of the landlords, that is, respondent Nos. 4 to 8. The petitioners visited the tenanted premises on September 24, 2011 and got confirmation and found that the entire second floor premises was closed under lock and key. Immediately thereafter, the representative of the petitioners Samar Dutta visited the office of the First Land Acquisition Collector at 5, Bankshall Street, Kolkata to ascertain the position of the said premises. The office of the First Land Acquisition Collector informed the said Samar Dutta that possession had been handed over to the landlords as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. Petitioners pointed out that the said possession should have been delivered to the petitioners inasmuch as in the year 1959 such possession was taken over from the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners being the tenant and as such the possession upon derequisition was required to be handed over to the said tenant and/or his heirs and legal representatives. The representative of the petitioners also pointed out that the petitioners are entitled to get rent compensation from the office of the First Land Acquisition Collector which was stopped ever since 1994. The petitioners were told that the landlords applied to the Land Acquisition Collector for realisation of such rent compensation. The said representation of the landlord is under consideration. However, the representative of the First Land Acquisition Collector expressed inability to hand over possession to the petitioners. The concerned officer refused to hand over any copy of the necessary order passed by the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the process of handing over possession to the landlord in spite of request.