Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ratna Mitra vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 August, 2023
Form No. J (2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
FMA 1014 of 2021
Ratna Mitra
VS.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Appellant : Mr. Swarnendu Ghosh,
Ms. Mary Datta, Advocates
For the State : Mr. S. N. Mookherjee, AG
: Mr. T.M. Siddiqui, AGP
Mr. S. Adak
Mr. Y. Singhi, Advocates
For the
Respondent no. 6 : Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay
Mr. Kallol Saha,
Mr. Akash Ghosh
Ms. Shinjita Ray, Advocates
Heard & Judgment on : August 4, 2023
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. The appeal is directed against an order dated January 2, 2020
passed in WP No. 27981(W) of 2014.
FMA 1014 of 2021
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the writ petition filed by the
appellant, was dismissed. The appellant was, however, granted leave to
file a civil suit for damages against the State of West Bengal within a
period of 3 months from date. If such suit was filed, the same was directed
to be considered in accordance with law. The trial Judge observed that, it
will not prevent the appellant and the state Government and the
Government of Arunachal Pradesh from working out any other suitable
arrangement which is partially reflected from the last page of the order
dated 3rd July, 2014 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the State
authorities purported to invoke the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling &
Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act of 1976) in respect of a transaction
happening prior to the Act of 1976 coming into force. The Act of 1976
cannot be said to be with retrospective effect or to be comprising of any
retrospectivity.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant draws the attention of the Court
to the contents of the order dated July 3, 2014 passed in WP 14762(W)
of 2011 [Deepak Mitra vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.]. He
submits that, during the pendency of allotment and even prior to
cancellation thereof, 3rd party rights in respect thereof was granted. State
of Arunachal Pradesh was granted the allotment in respect of the plot
concerned.
5. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that, the authorities
proposed to substitute the plot allotted with the plot of 5 cottah of land.
The appellant was, therefore, entitled to legitimate expectation with regard
to the allotment in respect of 5 cottah of land. The same should be
directed to be given to the appellant.
FMA 1014 of 2021
6. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State submits that, the
present writ petition is the fifth in a series of writ petitions filed either by
the appellant or by her predecessor-in-interest. He submits that, in an
exercise concerning allotment of land at Salt Lake, undertaken by the
State Government, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant submitted
an application which contains suppression of material facts. He draws the
attention of the Court to the effect, in such application, the predecessor-in-
interest of the appellant declared that, the applicant did not hold any land
in the State of West Bengal. He contends that, it was subsequently
discovered that the appellant and/or the predecessor-in-interest of the
appellant were in possession of various plots of land in the State of West
Bengal.
7. The appellant approached the High Court by way of a writ petition
seeking cancellation of an order dated September 5, 2014 passed by the
Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department.
8. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department was
directed by an order dated July 3, 2014 passed in WP No. 14762 (W) of
2011 to consider and dispose of the grievance of the predecessor-in-
interest of the appellant. By a reasoned order dated September 5, 2014,
the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department refused to grant
any relief to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant.
9. From the records, it appears that, the predecessor-in-interest of the
appellant applied for allotment of land on March 30, 1973. An allotment
letter was issued on April 30, 1974. No deed, however, was executed. The
appellant paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- on June 8, 1974. Subsequently, the
allotment was cancelled on December 29, 1980 and allotted to the
Government of Arunachal Pradesh for building office and guesthouse.
FMA 1014 of 2021
Lease deed was executed in favour of Government of Arunachal Pradesh
on February 4, 1988.
10. Apparently, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was granted
the initial allotment without the public at large being invited to participate
in the selection process for allotment of land of the Government. No public
auction was held. No lottery was also held. In fact, no notice calling for
application also was issued. The allotment itself was tainted with illegality.
Moreover, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant suppressed a
material fact in the application form. He declared that he was not the
owner of any land in West Bengal although he was.
11. The reasoned order dated September 5, 2014 noted such lacunae in
the allotment process.
12. The reasoned order dated September 5, 2014, directed refund of the
sum of Rs.35,000/- paid by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant to
the State Government.
13. So far as the provisions of the Act of 1976 is concerned, Section 3
thereof makes it abundantly clear that, on and from the commencement of
the Act of 1976, no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in
excess of the ceiling limit in the territories to which the Act of 1976
applies, except as otherwise provided in the Act of 1976.
14. The allotment in question is for a plot of land in excess of 7 cottah.
It comes within the mischief of the Act of 1976.
15. In the facts of the present case, the allotment in respect of the land
in question was not formalized. No lease deed was executed by and
between the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant and/or the State
Government. Moreover, 3rd party rights were created in respect of the plot
concerned.
FMA 1014 of 2021
16. There is a writing which speaks of granting the predecessor-in-
interest of the appellant 5 cottah of land in substitution of the land
allotment made. However, there is no record to suggest that the
predecessor-in-interest of the appellant accepted such a proposal.
17. In such circumstances, we are of the view that no binding contract
came into being either on the allotment of the land in question or with
regard to the subsequent offer of substitution of 5 cottah of land.
18. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the present
appeal.
19. FMA 1014 of 2021 is, accordingly, dismissed without any order as
to costs.
20. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given
to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
21. I Agree.
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
Dd
