P K SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner obtained the present rule and also an interim order of injunction on the 13th May, 1966.

(2.) Calcutta Improvement Trust for the improvement of the City prepared a scheme bearing Scheme No. 103 for widening the approach to the Lindsay Street from the side of Free School Street. The said scheme was published under Section 43 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 in May, 1963. The said scheme after the necessary formalities had been complied with, met with the approval of the State Government. For the purpose of implementing the said scheme it became necessary to acquire certain properties in Lindsav Street. One of the properties acquired in Lindsav Street is Premises No. 12/8-A Lindsay Street. It appears that premises No. 12/8A, Lindsay Street was a tenanted one and one of the tenants under the owner of the said premises was Mrs. A.E. Morrocco. An award was duly made in the said acquisition proceeding and compensation for acquisition of the said premises was awarded to the owner, to the tenant Mrs Morrocco, to one subtenant under Mrs. Morrocco who was carrying on business under Hie name and style of Hollywood Tailors. It also appears that premises No. 12/9A, Lindsay Street had also been acquired for the implementation of the said scheme and an award for compensation has been made in favour of persons entitled to compensation for acquisition of premises No. 12/9A, Lindsay Street. No objection has been raised by the owner, the tenant and the sub-tenant with regard to the validity of the acquisition proceeding and the award made in the said acquisition proceeding.

(3.) The petitioner claims to be a tenant in respect of premises No. 12/8A, Lindsay Street. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a tenant under Mrs. Morrocco and the petitioner as tenant of Mrs. Morrocco has a tailoring shop in the said premises. In support of the case that the petitioner is a tenant under Mrs. Morrocco in respect of a portion of premises No. 12/8A, Lindsay Street, the petitioner has annexed to his petition rent receipts granted by Mrs. Morrocco to him and also receipted electric bills. It is the case of the petitioner that no notice of any kind was ever served on the petitioner and the petitioner had no knowledge of the acquisition proceeding. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner came to know for the first time of the acquisision proceeding and also of the award on the 30th April, 1966 when a police officer came to his shop room and asked him to vacate the shop room on the 11th May, 1966 and deliver vacant possession of the said shop room in his possession to the Board of Trustees of the Calcutta Improvement Trust. The petitioner has made the case in his petition that on being so informed by the police officer the petitioner caused enauiries to be made and was informed by one of the tenants of No. 12/9A, Lindsav Street, viz.. M/s. M. N. Dey & Co. that the said premises had been acquired and notices of such acquisition had been served on the tenants. The petitioner has further alleged in his petition that the said M/s. M.N. Dey and Co. also informed the petitioner that Mrs. Morrocco under whom the petitioner was a tenant had in her petition dated 11th December, 1964 to the respondent No. 3, the Second Land Acauisition Collector, informed him that the petitioner was a tenant under her in the said premises. The petitioner has further stated in his petition that he thereafter proceeded to make various enquiries from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector but the said enquiries were of no use to him. The petitioner has further alleged that the tenant M/s. M.N. Dey & Co. showed to the petitioner the notice dated 30th March. 1966 asking the said tenant to collect the compensation money. The petitioner has alleged in his petition that thereafter on the 4th May, 1966 he again visited the office of the Land Acquisition Collector and on that day he was shown a list of persons who had been served with notices of acquisition and according to the petitioner the petitioner's name was not mentioned in the list. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated the 30th March, 1966 which was shown to him by M/s. M.N. Dey and Co. The petitioner is also challenging the validity of the order in consequence whereof the petitioner is likely to be evicted from the said premises. As I have already noticed the petitioner obtained this rule and also obtained an order of injunction in May, 1966 and by virtue of the order of injunction the said scheme has so far remained unimplemented and the petitioner and also the other persons in the said premises who have raised no dispute whatsoever with regard to the validity of the acquisition proceeding and the award made in their favour are continuing to be in possession of the said premises.