FRIENDS BUREAU Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the applicant Friends' Bureau under Order 21 Rule 100 which lost in both the Courts.

(2.) The case of the petitioner was that it entered into possession of the property in dispute at holding No. 1 Shankaripara Ghat Lane, Kotrung P. S. Uttarpara in the District of Hooghly by virtue of a licence granted by one G. Paul in November, 1960. The petitioner had been possessing the suit property by manufacturing bricks therein. It was in uninterrupted peaceful continuous use, of enjoyment and possession of the entire land in question. Such possession was openly and adversely to the interest to its owner Corporation of Calcutta. Thus the petitioner claimed to have acquired right, title and interest on the principle of adverse possession in the suit land along with the structures, buildings, godown. garages staff quarters standing thereon, G. Paul who granted licence had at that time no manner of right, title and interest in the suit land and he was not a party to T. S. 78 of 1947 and to the compromise decree passed therein on 12-12-49. Sri G. Paul was also not a judgment-debtor and thus the possession of the petitioner was always adverse to the Corporation of Calcutta. On 30-4-75 at about noon men of Calcutta Corporation with labourers, armed force and police officers trespassed in the suit land destroyed and ransacked the valuable properties and damaged all belongings of the petitioner without prior notice. Objection was filed before the Nazir of the Court who could not deliver vacant possession of the suit land to the Corporation of Calcutta The petitioner was in fact in possession of the suit property till 3-5-75, when it was forcibly dispossessed by the Corporation of Calcutta. Under the above circumstances the petitioner claimed to be put in possession.

(3.) This application was opposed by the Corporation of Calcutta. It was stated that the petitioner had no concern with the brick kilns Nos. 4 and 6 of the Kotrung Brickfield the possession of which had been delivered to the decree-holder Corporation of Calcutta on 30-4-75. It was further stated that Shri G. Paul was a trespasser in suit land and he had no right to grant license in respect of the suit land to any one including the petitioner. The petitioner was characterised as a benami firm of Shri G. Paul.