ANJANA ROYCHOWDHURY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters were analogously heard on the question of maintainability of the PILs. Shri Kar, Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 10 urged that the main prayer of the PIL reads thus:

(2.) The land in LR Plot No. 89 (corresponding to Rs.Plot No. 73) in Mouza Chandannagore is a huge piece of land. Out of this entire land, some part became subject matter of litigation under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The original owners filed the proceeding before the first authority and became unsuccessful. Thereafter they preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. In view of above orders, the said land became vested. The state issued a long term lease dtd. 9/7/2020 in favour of the respondent no. 10. In turn, respondent no. 10 raised the construction over it and constructed apartments. 146 occupants have already occupied the flats/accommodation in the apartment/s.

(3.) The bone of contention of Shri Kar, Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent no. 10 is that by filing CAN 1 of 2020, the petitioner has prayed for cancellation of the long term lease. However, no corresponding relief was prayed in the relevant prayer clause by amending the PIL. By way of interim application (I.A CAN 2 of 2020) cancellation of long term lease is not permissible. In the main prayer of PIL, since no relief is claimed against the long term lease, the construction so raised pursuant to the said lease cannot be interfered with. In absence of appropriate relief claimed in the PIL, PIL has rendered infructuous and meaningless. Rule 56 and 57 of the High Court of Calcutta, Appellate Side Rules were relied upon to submit that there must be a physical filing of public interest litigation with appropriate amendments assailing the long term lease. In case a subsequent event takes place or petitioner wants a relief different than the relief originally claimed in the PIL, an amendment is necessary. In absence thereof, PIL has lost its force and is not maintainable.