MUKUL BARUAH Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Central Bank of India for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, NHIDC for the respondent no. 3; and Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 4.

(2.) The petitioner has claimed that he is the owner of a plot of land measuring 1 Katha and 1 Lessa [1K-1L], covered by Dag no. 76 and Periodic Patta no.75, located in Rangagarah Kissam, Mouza - Missa and District - Nagaon ['the subject-land, for short] and a two-storied building standing thereon ['the subject-building', for short]. The ground floor of the subject- building was taken on lease by the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank in the year 1979 by executing an agreement with the father of the petitioner who was alive at that point of time. In the year 1985, the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank stood merged with the respondent no. 1, Central Bank of India and after merger, the respondent no. 1 Bank was in occupation of the ground floor from the year 1985 onwards under lease. On 1/8/2019, a fresh lease agreement had been executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 Bank in respect of the ground floor of the subject-building for a period of 10 [ten] years i.e. up to 31/7/2029 and the Missa Branch/Office of the respondent no. 1 Bank is currently located in the said ground floor.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he has invested a huge amount of money to install necessary fittings, fixtures, etc. in order to make the premises ready for the respondent no. 1 Bank. As an acquisition process was initiated for four laning of National Highway 37 from Rangagara to Kaliabor Tiniali, a part of the subject-land along with a part of the subject-building has come under the purview of the acquisition process. The possession of that part of the subject- building has not yet been taken over by the acquiring authority till date. The further case of the petitioner is that in the event the part of the subject-land and the part of the subject-building are taken possession by the acquiring authority, the petitioner is ready to provide alternative accommodation to the respondent no. 1 Bank in the other part of the subject-land which has not come under the purview of the acquisition process and for that purpose, the petitioner is ready to make available the premises of necessary dimensions to the respondent no. 1 Bank.