PRAKASH KUMAR SINGHI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : These two writ petitions namely, W.P. No. 1804 of 1996 and W.P. 2346 of 1996 are directed against the judgment and the orders passed by the Appellate Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 as well as Competent Authority whereby petitioners were directed to surrender 1474.38 S.M. and 1144.46 sq.ft. of excess land to the Government. Petitioners have inter alia claimed that they are the owners of the portions of premises No. 9/3B, Gariahat Road, 17 and 19, Garcha 1st Lane and 1/64, Garcha 1st Lane, Calcutta. Petitioners however, under wrongly legal advice, filed a return under section 6(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the "said Act' although they do not posses any land in excess of their ceiling limit.

(2.) The Competent Authority prepared a draft statement under section 8 of the said Act and served the same to the petitioners. The had, therefore, objected to the said draft statement but the competent Authority passed the final statement under section 8 of the said Act.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said final statement, the petitioners filed appeals under section 33 of the said Act by stating inter alia that the Competent Authority did not offer an opportunity of hearing before preparing the final statement. They further stated that no enquiry was held before preparing the draft statement under section 8 of the Act. The Competent Authority has wrongly observed that the petitioners held land in excess of permissible limits. It has been further submitted that the Competent Authority as well as Appellate Authority have wrongly held that the premises held by the appellants were vacant land as there were permanent structures standing thereon prior to the said Act came into force. The competent Authority wrongly calculated the area possessed by the petitioners. The Competent Authority ignored the dwelling units and structures standing in the aforesaid premises which were in fact in existence prior to the said Act came into force. They also did not cause any spot enquiry to corroborate the fact stated by the petitioners and therefore the covered area, land appurtenant and additional land appurtenant to which the petitioners are entitled to have not been reflected correctly in the draft statement prepared under section 9 of the said Act. The Competent Authority decided the total area held by the petitioners at 2056.06 s.m. of vacant land out of which one of the petitioners was entitled to 500 sq.m. and directed to surrender the remaining 1556.06 sq.m. to the Government. Similarly, the Competent Authority determined that the other petitioner held 3510.74 sq.m. out of which he was allowed to retain 500 sq.m. of land and directed to surrender remaining 1726.14 sq.m. to the Government.