SK MOHAMMED JAINAL Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity of Scheme No. 103 of the Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta forms essentially and basically the subject matter of challenge in this proceeding. The petitioner claims to carry on business of packing box manufacturing at premises No. 8/C. Free School Street, now known and numbered as 8/C. Mirza Galib Street. Calcutta, under licence issued by the Corporation of Calcutta and the petitioner has stated that ho pays occupier's share of taxes of the said premises. The petitioner has also stated that he pays rent to the lessee of the premises. The petitioner however did not produce any receipted bill of the Corporation or any rent receipt along with the petition. The petitioner has annexed to his affidavit-in-reply a copy OF his trade licence of 1960 and produced in course of hearing trade licence for the years 1963 to 1972-73. On the basis of the said scheme, which was sanctioned sometime in 1964, premises No. 8/C, Free School Street of which the petitioner claims to be an occupier, has been acquired. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner came to know of the said scheme and the acquisition of the said property from the police officer who came to his shop room on the 25th March, 1975 and prior to that date the petitioner had no knowledge of the said scheme or the acquisition of the said property on the basis of the said scheme.

(2.) The petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the 29th March. 1975, and obtained a rule and also an order of injunction restraining the respondents from taking further action on the basis of the said scheme. Thereafter the petitioner made an application for amendment of the petition. It was stated by the learned Counsel appearing in support of this application that by the proposed amendments no new grounds are sought to be introduced but the proposed amendments were indeed necessary for elaborating the grounds already taken in the petition and by the proposed amendments certain additional new materials and facts were sought to be incorporated. The said application for amendment was contested by the respondents and it was contended that the said application was indeed mala fide and was made for the purpose of delaying the hearing of the proceeding. I directed the said application for amendment to be heard along with the petition. The said application for amendment has also been heard along with the petition. I had allowed Mr. Dutt, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, to make his submissions on the basis of the statements contained in the proposed amendments. I have not treated the application for amendment separately and I have not made any separate order on the said application for amendment, as in my view a separate order in the said application for amendment would have delayed the hearing of this matter and on behalf of the Authorities it was urged before me that the matter was indeed very urgent. I also felt that if I were to allow the said amendments by a formal order, it would be necessary for me to allow the parties concerned to file further affidavits with regard to the amended petition and in such a case the matter would undoubtedly be delayed and the question of continuance of the interim order under such circumstances had to be considered. Under these circumstances I thought it best that I would hear the application for amendment along with the main petition and after hearing the parties if I thought that it would be necessary to pass any separate and formal order on the application for amendment I would do so. As I have already observed I allowed Mr. Dutt the learned Counsel who arfiued the matter on behalf of the petitioner, to make his submissions on the basis of the proposed amendments in the amendment application, as if the said amendments had been allowed.

(3.) Mr. Dutt. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has raised three principal contentions;