SANTI DEVI MITTAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 18th June, 1974, the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale with the owner of the concerned piece of land since he was having a thika tenancy right thereon at the relevant point of time. Since the owner of the land failed to execute and register the sale deed the petitioner in the first writ petition instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 84 of 1983 before the appropriate Civil Court and obtained a decree. On the basis of such decree an execution proceeding was initiated but at the time of the registration of the sale deed a dispute cropped up which is germane for the purpose of due consideration by this Court. Such dispute is in respect of grant of permission by the Authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 which is required to be done before registration.

(2.) In an erstwhile writ petition being Matter of 2433 of 1989 (Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Competent Authority, Calcutta & Ors.) a Bench of this Court was pleased to pass an order on 22nd November, 1990. It is necessary for this Court to go into detailed recordings of the facts under such order for the purpose of coming to a conclusion. It appears that the owner of the land was submitted a return under section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in 1985 and a draft statement was prepared in the year, 1986. The erstwhile owner filed his objection. However, the final settlement was prepared and published upon the owner in December, 1986. A declaration under section 10(5) of the Act was made on 7th June, 1987 and a notification for taking possession of the disputed land was issued on 31st August, 1988. For the aforesaid reason, deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioner was not registered. All steps for vesting the land under the Act were already completed. According to the petitioner therein, although the vesting was completed prior to the execution of this sale deed but notification for taking up the possession under section 10 of the Act was issued on 31st August, 1988 much after the execution of the deed of sale. It was also recorded therein that the petitioners submitted that no notice was issued by the competent authority upon them before taking a step under such Act. Relevant rent receipts were also produced before the Court for the purpose of establishment of the thika right of the present purchaser of the land in question. Upon taking into account all facts and circumstances of this case the impugned order and notifications were quashed by the Court and competent authority was directed to proceed de novo with the disputed proceeding after serving the notice to the owner as well as the present petitioner i.e. the purchaser of the land. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Calcutta Municipal Corporation for mutating his name as purchaser which was accordingly done. The rates and taxes were being paid by such petitioner to such authority. The petitioner came to know that the Refugee and Rehabilitation Department acquired the land and was then proceeded to distribute pattas in respect of the self-same land in question to different parties of their choice. Then another writ petition was moved before this Court being W.P. No. 13671(W) of 1997 and upon being dissatisfied with the order passed therein an appeal was preferred. When a Division Bench of this Court was pleased to set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge, the execution and the distribution of pattas were quashed. The order of vesting under notification dated 31st August, 1988 was also quashed and set aside. A special leave petition was filed as against such order passed by the Division Bench whereunder the order of was substituted by a direction upon the authority under the Act to dispose of the proceeding at the earliest and the present possession of land in question of the respondent will not be disturbed till final disposal of the proceeding and the same will be abided by the result therein. If it is necessary to restore the possession of the land to the erstwhile owners then it will be open for the State Authority to take appropriate steps in accordance with law in evicting the land occupants and for handling over the land to the rightful owners pursuant to the order in the ceiling proceedings. In view of the order, the contempt application pending in the High Court was also treated to be disposed of. In view of such order the interim orders including the order dated 20th August, 1998 will not survive.

(3.) The present writ petition is challenging the order passed by the competent authority being annexure 'O' to the writ petition and order passed by the Appellate Authority being annexure 'Q' to the writ petition.