NAZIMUDDIN LASKAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner who claimed right, title and interest m relation to Plot No. 278 of Khatian No. 132 of Mouza Garden Reach, has filed this application for following reliefs:

(2.) The petitioner claimed right, title and interest in respect of the said plot alleging inter alia therein that the Khatian No. 132 which merged with Khatian No. 108, belonged to the grand father of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the plot in question was granted under lease to one Bengal Bus Syndicate and the said leasee surrendered the lease hold on 27-1-68. Further case of the petitioner is that his name has been mutated in the office of the State of West Bengal and his application for grant of sanction of plan for construction of Building on the said plot has also been passed.

(3.) The petitioner further contended that a proceeding under Sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated at the instance of the respondent No. 5 who claimed his right, title and interest in relation to the said plot purported to be on the basis of an agreement for sale entered into by and between himself and the Bengal Bus Syndicate in the year 1969. In the said application an order under Sec. 144 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was passed which resulted in filing of a writ application in this Court and Honourable Justice SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN appointed a Special Officer who allegedly submitted a report showing the possession in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has urged that the police authority despite the same has been interfering with his possession and construction of the building in question. By reason of an order dated 23-6-95, this Court passed an ex parte order without notice to the private respondent and without waiving the requirement of Rule 27 of the Writ Rules framed by this Court, restraining the respondents from creating obstruction relating to the construction work of the petitioner in the property in question until further orders. Liberty, however, had been given to the respondents to apply for variation and/or vacation of the said interim order upon notice to the petitioner.