ARUN KUMAR GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 2/2/2001 by a notice published in the newspaper, the Government of West Bengal invited expression of interest to set up a hybrid/high yielding seed and seedling production center for vegetables, flowers, spices and other horticultural production at Ayeshpur, Haringhata, Nadia. It was declared in the said notification that the proposed project will be carried on and conducted as a joint venture project of West Bengal State Food Processing and Horticultural Development Corporation Limited, respondent No.3 herein. The petitioner having fulfilled all the eligibility criteria, participated in the selection process and the concerned department selected the petitioner's company for the seed project and by a Memo dtd. 30/3/2001, the Administrative Department of Government of West Bengal instructed the petitioner to set up the seed production center at Ayeshpur, Haringhata, Nadia. It is further stated by the petitioner that for running the said project jointly with the corporation (respondent No.3) the petitioner formed a private limited company in the year 2003. During the initial discussion of the joint venture company, the petitioner was informed that a piece of land would be provided by the Land and Land Reforms Department. The corporation by its letter dtd. 22/12/2023 instructed the petitioner to take all the necessary measures for trial cultivation on the said land. That on 11/8/2004 a draft Memorandum of Understanding was sent by the Corporation to Shanti Agri-Horti Pvt. Ltd wherein also no time limit was mentioned for establishment of the production center, and it was also not mentioned whether any part of the period during which the production activities would be carried out was considered on trial run basis or not. The petitioner was permitted to carry on the production activities on 5 hectors of land situated at Ayeshpur, Haringhata, since the year 2003 though no Memorandum of Understanding was executed. The petitioner in good faith and for the interest of public supported production on trial basis on the said land. The company of the petitioner had entered into an agreement with Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya in order to obtain their expertise and to research work for production of high yielding seeds. He had employed more than 50 to 60 employees in the said production unit since commencement of the activities at the site. However, on 30/4/2010 and order was issued instructing the petitioner to show cause as to why commercial cultivation has been carried out without permission and also to submit explanation for non-submission of returns/statements of account to the corporation for years and the corporation further instructed the petitioner to vacate the occupied land by 30/6/2010. However, the respondent authorities did not give any effect to such letter dtd. 20/7/2010. On the contrary, a meeting was held on 5/8/2010 between the petitioner and the Assistant Secretary, Department of Food Processing Industries and Horticulture, Government of West Bengal for finalizing the joint venture agreement on the land in question. The petitioner has been running with production of high yielding seeds and seedlings in the said land and also supplied plant and supply to the different government projects in the State of West Bengal as well as other States. The petitioner company has been running the said project diligently with the aid and assistance of experts of Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya. The State Government also obtained a report from the Dean, Horticulture, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya on 28/4/2011 about the status of such collaboration with an entity owned by the petitioner and the concerned authority had duly relied to the queries through its letter dtd. 9/9/2011. Suddenly on 25/9/2020 a show cause notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer in purported exercise of power under Ss. 3 and 4 of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 and in connection with such notice the petitioner was directed to attend hearing on 5/10/2020. In inquiry, the petitioner came to know that the corporation, respondent No.3 made two complains before the Sub-Divisional Officer requesting him to take step for eviction of the petitioner from the land in question. The petitioner challenged the said notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kalyani by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was registered as WPA 1497 of 2021. However, at the time of hearing of the said writ petition, the corporation sought for liberty to withdraw the said notice dtd. 24/9/2020 for initiation of fresh step as per law as such the notice dtd. 24/9/2020 stood withdraw with the leave of this Court. It is also submitted by the petitioner that Shanti Agri-Horti Pvt. Ltd. as a juristic entity filed another writ petition being WPA 8356 of 2020 challenging the aforesaid notice and the said writ petition is still pending for adjudication, although the same has became infructuous after withdrawal of the notice by the State respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner was continuing his work as per Memorandum of Understanding on the said land. However, on 9/8/2021 some persons forcefully entered into the said land and assaulted the employees of the petitioners company took away valuable machines and plants and further tried to evict the petitioner forcefully. The petitioner immediately lodged an FIR before the local police station. He also preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for restoration of possession and other incidental reliefs which was registered as WPA 16404 of 2021. However, such writ petition was withdrawn with the leave of the court on 30/9/2022 due to certain omissions and subsequent events which were required to be dealt with. Even during the pendency of the investigation of the criminal case which was registered on the basis of FIR submitted by the petitioner, the men and employees of the respondent No.3 forcefully and resultantly obstructed petitioner's ingress and egress to the said property. He also registered an application under Article 226 of the Constitution being WPA 24290 of 2022 but the said writ petition was disposed of on 13/2/2023 holding, inter alia, that there were disputed questions of fact involved in the said writ petition. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dtd. 13/2/2023 before the Division Bench of this Court which has been registered as MAT 735 of 2023 and the same is currently pending for adjudication. It is alleged by the petitioner that subsequent to the filing of WPA 24290 of 2022, the respondents, particularly respondent No.3 has created and manufactured certain documents in the form of inter-departmental communication to claim that the corporation was granted permissive as well as physical possession of the subject land on and from 13/10/2020. The contention of the respondents as it appears from the inter-departmental communication is blatantly false, concocted and contradictory to the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 coupled with delivery of possession of the said land. Accordingly, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Managing Director of the respondent No.3 corporation on 21/3/2023 stating, inter alia, that the petitioner never surrendered possession of the property measuring about 5 hectors situated at Ayeshpur, Haringhata, Nadia. The Managing Director of respondent No.3 corporation replied to the said letter on 27/4/2023. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner developed the said property for the purpose of horticulture and procured valuable machineries, high yielding seeds and seedling and in this way he spent approximately a sum of Rs.5.00 crores on the said property. The employees of the respondent No.3 have taken away the plant and seedlings along with various costly fruits from the firm possessed by the petitioner by illegally and forcefully entering into the land in the darkness of night causing tremendous loss to the petitioner. It is further submitted by the petitioner that he never surrendered the possession of the subject land voluntarily in favour of the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 has no authority to take possession of the said land otherwise than due process of law.