Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 790 (CAL)

AVA RANI DUTTA v. 1ST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

2012-08-22

ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI

body2012
Judgment The writ petitioners are the successors of late Ganesh Chandra Dutta who was a tenant since 1957 in respect of eastern portion of 2nd floor at premises No.14, Hare Street, Kolkata – 700001 measuring about 1200 sq.ft. more or less under his landlord, Prafulla Charan Law, since deceased. 2. The writ petitioners filed this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents being State authorities to hand over the de-requisitioned area of the premises being the eastern portion of 2nd floor at 14, Hare Street, Kolkata – 700001 to the petitioners and to assess the rent compensation payable to the petitioners and also for making such payment. 3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta, since deceased, was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Benod Behari Nag and Ganesh Chandra Dutta from the aforementioned tenanted premises. It was submitted that a notice bearing No. 132/59 REQN dated 30th September 1959 under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1947 was issued for the purpose of requisitioning the premises in question and a direction was given in the said notice to the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta, since deceased, to hand over the possession of the tenanted premises on September 30, 1959 at 4.30 p.m. or on any subsequent date. In compliance with the said notice, possession of the said tenanted premises was handed over to the respondents. Thereafter, the First Land Acquisition Collector, Government of West Bengal, assessed rent compensation for the said premises and the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta during his life time was receiving rent compensation at the rate of Rs.164/- per month. Ganesh Chandra Dutta died intestate on 25th December 1994 leaving behind him surviving legal heirs and representatives who are the petitioners herein. It was contended that rent compensation was received by the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta till January 1994. Thereafter, no further rent compensation was paid. However, the petitioners on enquiry came to know that the rent compensation was enhanced by an order of this Hon’ble Court at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.ft. and they are entitled to get the rent at the same rate for 1200 sq.ft. area against which Ganesh Chandra Dutta was a tenant. 4. Thereafter, no further rent compensation was paid. However, the petitioners on enquiry came to know that the rent compensation was enhanced by an order of this Hon’ble Court at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.ft. and they are entitled to get the rent at the same rate for 1200 sq.ft. area against which Ganesh Chandra Dutta was a tenant. 4. After the death of the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta, the petitioners as legal heirs and representatives inherited the tenancy since the right of tenancy is heritable. It was contended that neither the petitioners nor Ganesh Chandra Dutta ever surrendered the tenancy to the landlords nor the landlords issued notice of eviction to the petitioners or for vacating the said premises or initiated any proceedings for eviction. Accordingly the right of tenancy in respect of the tenanted portion is continuing and will continue until the petitioners as tenants are duly evicted by following statutory procedure. It was submitted that after the death of the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta, the petitioners received a copy of the Memo No.1281-82 dated 10th October, 1995. By the said Memo, the petitioners were informed that the tenanted portion of the concerned premises was de-requisitioned with effect from 27th September 1995 vide Land & Land Reforms Department’s order dated 594-REQN dated 27th February 1995. In that Memo request was made to the tenant to be present on the spot on 16-10-1995 at 1.00 p.m. for taking over vacant possession from the office of the Surveyor-Valuer. It was contended that in spite of the Memorandum, possession was not delivered to the petitioners or their constituted attorney Sri Samar Dutta who was present on the spot as per direction. It was submitted that one Samar Dutta was appointed to take care of the daily affairs of their properties and Samar Dutta occasionally visited the premises in question. The subject premises was used as office of the West Bengal Ceramic Development Corporation Ltd. 5. On or about 21st September 2011, the petitioners were informed by one of the shop owners that the office of the West Bengal Ceramic Development Corporation Ltd. was closed and some persons claiming to be the officers of the Land Acquisitions Collector, Kolkata came to the said premises and handed over possession of the entire portion of the premises to the representatives of the landlords, that is, respondent Nos. 4 to 8. 4 to 8. The petitioners visited the tenanted premises on September 24, 2011 and got confirmation and found that the entire second floor premises was closed under lock and key. Immediately thereafter, the representative of the petitioners Samar Dutta visited the office of the First Land Acquisition Collector at 5, Bankshall Street, Kolkata to ascertain the position of the said premises. The office of the First Land Acquisition Collector informed the said Samar Dutta that possession had been handed over to the landlords as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta. Petitioners pointed out that the said possession should have been delivered to the petitioners inasmuch as in the year 1959 such possession was taken over from the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners being the tenant and as such the possession upon derequisition was required to be handed over to the said tenant and/or his heirs and legal representatives. The representative of the petitioners also pointed out that the petitioners are entitled to get rent compensation from the office of the First Land Acquisition Collector which was stopped ever since 1994. The petitioners were told that the landlords applied to the Land Acquisition Collector for realisation of such rent compensation. The said representation of the landlord is under consideration. However, the representative of the First Land Acquisition Collector expressed inability to hand over possession to the petitioners. The concerned officer refused to hand over any copy of the necessary order passed by the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the process of handing over possession to the landlord in spite of request. 6. It was submitted by Mr. Basu that respondents have obligation to hand over possession of the said premises and the respondents are duty bound to deliver possession to the person from whom possession was taken over at the time of requisition and/or to the successors-in-interest of such person. It was further submitted by him that if the respondents are unable to find out any person or agent who is authorised to have the delivery of possession on behalf of the person from whom the possession was taken, a notice declaring that the property is released from requisition has to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the property and a notice is required to be published in the official gazette. The State respondents are aware of the address of the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners are still maintaining the same address, but no such notice was ever served upon any of the petitioners either in their names or in the name of Late Ganesh Chandra Dutta, although the address of the petitioners was well known to the respondents. It was submitted that the respondents had deliberately avoided to inform the petitioners by issuing statutory notice for handing over possession and they had acted mala fide and in violation of the relevant provisions of law. It was also submitted that the concerned State respondents acted in collusion and conspiracy with the landlords of the said premises and they consciously and knowingly did not point out the existence of the tenancy to the Hon’ble High Court, so that the possession could be handed over to the landlords by avoiding the petitioners who are the right persons to get back possession. The impugned action shows that the respondents had acted in collusion and conspiracy with the landlords. Mr. Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, referred to section 10 of the West Bengal Premises (Requisition and Control) Act 1947 and submitted that it is the duty of the State Government to make inquiry and specify by order in writing the person to whom delivery of possession of the requisitioned premises should be made after de-requisitioning and in case the person specified in the order cannot be found or is not readily traceable or has no agent or the person have no power to accept delivery on his behalf, the State Government shall publish in the official gazette a notice declaring that such premises are released from requisition and shall cause a copy thereof to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the premises. Mr. Basu submitted that there is no such gazette notification declaring that the said premises should be released and possession of the same should be handed over on a specified date. He has also submitted that for the purpose of settlement of possession, the Collector is to enquire the respective rights of all persons interested in the premises and shall decide as to whether the compensation shall be paid to any such persons periodically or in lump. He has also submitted that for the purpose of settlement of possession, the Collector is to enquire the respective rights of all persons interested in the premises and shall decide as to whether the compensation shall be paid to any such persons periodically or in lump. In case of dispute as to whom amount of compensation or part thereof is payable or as to the apportionment of the same, the Collector shall keep the same in revenue deposit till the settlement of the dispute. It was submitted that no such inquiry was ever made. The petitioners were never called upon to take delivery of the possession. Rent compensation was suspended since 1994. The respondents did not follow the statutory requirement to make inquiry as to the eligibility of the petitioners to take possession of the premises. It was submitted that the entire action on the part of the respondents are illegal, arbitrary, malafide and collusive and that the petitioners are entitled to get rent compensation. It was also submitted that the respondents 1, 2 and 3 did not follow the statutory procedure to make enquiry as to the eligibility of the petitioners to take possession of the said tenanted portion of the premises. It was submitted by Mr. Basu that several writ petitions were moved by the landlords without making the petitioners as party-respondents knowing fully well that are successors of the tenant who are entitled to get back possession, and obtained orders from this Hon’ble Court to get back possession in collusion and conspiracy with the officers of the First Land Acquisition Collector and other concerned officers. He submitted that the orders were obtained behind the back of the petitioners without making them as party in these proceedings and therefore, those orders are not binding upon the writ petitioners and the orders obtained without making them party-respondents in those proceedings are violative of the relevant statutory provisions as well as violative of the principles of natural justice. The impugned orders are void ab-initio and the writ petitioners are not at all bound by it. Mr. Bose submitted that the respondents/landlords have adopted a magical procedure to get eviction in their favour in a circuitous way without following the relevant provisions under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 which were applicable at the relevant point of time. Mr. Mr. Bose submitted that the respondents/landlords have adopted a magical procedure to get eviction in their favour in a circuitous way without following the relevant provisions under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 which were applicable at the relevant point of time. Mr. Basu submitted that writ court is not the proper forum to pass an order of eviction in its discretionary writ jurisdiction. Mr. Basu submitted that a second writ petition is maintainable at the instance of the third party whose right was affected and who were not made parties in the earlier proceedings which were decided behind their back. It was submitted that there are Supreme Court decisions in that regard which support the contentions of the writ petitioners and, therefore, according to him, this writ petition is maintainable for the selfsame cause of action at the instance of the writ petitioners who are really prejudiced and affected by the impugned action of the respondent-authorities as well as the impugned order passed by the Court in writ jurisdiction. 7. He submitted that there is judgment of this Hon’ble Court in which it was held that if the State Government gets physical possession from the citizen whose land is sought to be requisitioned for the purpose of requiring authority, then the State Government should also hand over the derequisitioned premises to the citizen from whom such possession had been taken. 8. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the private-respondents, the landlords who got back possession from the concerned State authorities, has submitted that Ganesh Chandra Dutta died in the year 1992 and the cheque which was disclosed by the successor of said Ganesh Chandra Dutta is of 1995 which was again issued after the death of the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta. He submitted that this Hon’ble Court directed the State authorities to hand over possession to the landlords. The State authorities issued section 4 notification in 1990. Challenging the said notification one writ petition was filed by the land lords which was registered as Matter No. 1382 of 1991. By an order dated 5th September, 1991, the said notification was quashed on the ground that the provisions of section 49 of the Act of 1984 were not considered. The State authorities issued section 4 notification in 1990. Challenging the said notification one writ petition was filed by the land lords which was registered as Matter No. 1382 of 1991. By an order dated 5th September, 1991, the said notification was quashed on the ground that the provisions of section 49 of the Act of 1984 were not considered. Subsequently another writ application was moved by the owners against the First Land Acquisition Collector and others for a direction upon the State-Respondents to hand over the tenanted portion of the entire second floor of the said Premises No. 14, Hare Street, Kolkata, to the writ petitioners at an early date. However, while disposing of that writ application on 18th August, 1993, the learned Single Judge recorded that after the order dated 5th September, 1991, no further step was taken by the State Government for acquisition of the property or for requisition of the same, and, accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed to deliver possession of the aforesaid second floor of Premises No. 14, Hare Street, Kolkata, to the writ petitioners/landlords within four months from the date of communication of the said order dated 18th August, 1993. It was also recorded that there is a proposal on the side of the State to acquire the said premises. Liberty was given to the respondents to acquire the property of the said premises of the petitioners in accordance with law. It was made clear that in the event the said premises is acquired, then the question of delivery of possession within the time specified in terms of the order shall not arise at all. Against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18th August, 1993, an appeal was preferred by the owners. It was contended before the appeal Court by the learned Counsel appearing for the owners that the trial Judge directed the respondents to deliver possession to the writ petitioners within four months from the date of communication of the order dated 18th August, 1993 making it clear that during this period, it would be open to the concerned respondents to acquire property in accordance with law and if the property is sought to be acquired, the question of handing over possession to the writ petitioners by the respondents concerned would not arise at all. It was submitted that the learned trial Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by passing the said order in view of the fact that appropriate steps for acquiring such premises had not at all been taken by the State authorities in this regard in the meantime. It was also submitted that it was the bounden duty on the part of the respondent authorities to hand over possession of the requisitioned premises forthwith to the writ petitioners who are the landlords of the said premises. However, making payment of compensation at the old rate was also questioned. It was submitted that in case of the tenanted portion possession was taken in 1996 and, in other case, requisition was made in 1994. After hearing the appeals, the rent compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.ft. conforming to the market rate for the occupation of the respondent authorities with a further direction upon them to complete the acquisition proceeding within a period of six months from the date of disposal of the appeal. It was made clear that if the proceedings are not complete by that date, the mandate as passed by the learned trial Judge should definitely be operative and the appellants/ the landlords would be entitled to get back possession of the disputed premises in accordance with law. With the aforesaid order, the appeals were disposed of. Thereafter, again the State Government issued notifications both under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 as well as under sub-section (4) of section 17 of the said Act. The notifications were challenged by filing two writ petitions, being WP No. 870 of 1996 and WP No. 863 of 1996, relating to both the premises, that is, 14, Hare Street and 12, Hare Street, Kolkata. The aforesaid notifications were ultimately set aside by the appeal Court and the following order was passed:- “We are thus of the opinion that both the notifications in regard to both the premises issued in a combined way under sections 4 and 17(4) were the products of a closed mind, which was already made up, that the premises being in the possession of the government undertakings, would be kept by such government undertakings, and a compensation would be awarded to the public parties. The whole proceedings show such a closed mind. The whole proceedings show such a closed mind. The appellants had lost their property as soon as the combined notice under sections 4 and 17(4) had been published. In our opinion, this manner of proceedings to acquire land vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings. Dispensing with hearing of objections, when there was no urgency is an infirmity. The learned Judge in the Court below has dismissed the writ application on the basis that urgency is not justiciable in court, and that some urgency was there, has been averred by the government, and it has to be accepted. We are of the opinion, with the greatest of respect, that although urgency is not justiciable, its lack of presence can always be pronounced by a court of law when the use of urgent powers can be seen and manifestly shown, as her, to be wholly impermissible. Such is the situation here, as the dates themselves clarify. We propose to quash the acquisition proceedings. The result would be it that the requiring authority and the acquiring authority have in a combined way been in unauthorised occupation through the purported proceedings, and are still continuing in such unauthorised occupation. They are compelled to hand over possession to the appellants forthwith. One further point remains and that is of compensation. Mr. Dutt, whose exemplary conduct of the proceedings stands starkly in contrast with his clients’ improper notifications, has been of the greatest assistance to this Court, and has given us the necessary law and the facts and figures, as soon as we had asked for those. He has assured us, and we wholly accept his submissions, that @ Rs.10/- per square foot, as had been ordered by the court of appeal on 18.4.94, money has been paid to the appellants for boith the premises up to and inclusive of the month of December, 1995. Even then, five and half years of unauthorized occupation by the respondents remain to be appropriately compensated. Since no person has challenged the appellate order of 18.4.94 as unduly harsh upon the government, we respectfully accept the rate provided therein i.e. Rs. 10/- per square foot per month. Mr. Mallick and Mr. Deb for the appellants have been just as fair as Mr. Dutt. Since no person has challenged the appellate order of 18.4.94 as unduly harsh upon the government, we respectfully accept the rate provided therein i.e. Rs. 10/- per square foot per month. Mr. Mallick and Mr. Deb for the appellants have been just as fair as Mr. Dutt. Learned counsel on both sides have given us the thorough estimates that the area in regard to No. 12/1 would be a little under 2300 square foot and the total floor area of 14, Hare Street is somewhat above thirteen and half thousand square foot, roughly one third of it being liable to be restored to the appellant, and balance two thirds being under tenancy. As such, we find that at least 6000 square foot of floor area has to be compensated for. Thus, sixty thousand rupees a month, would lend us to a figure of about Rs.4000000/- ane we fix the cut off compensation as on date at Rs.4000000/-, it being a round and fair sum. On the above basis, the following order is passed:- The judgments under appeal in both the appeals are set aside. There will be rule absolute and orders in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of both the writ petitions whether rule nisi was issued in the first instance or not. Possession shall be handed over by the respondents, their officers, agents, servants and assigns to the appellants or their authorized representatives forthwith if possible, we would have said, sundown today. A sum of Rs.4000000/- shall be paid by the First L.A. Collector, and the Branch Manager and other officers Canara Bank, Hare Street Branch, out of the sums lying deposited mentioned above, to the appellants or their representatives forthwith, the expedition required in this matter being as much as in the matter handing over of possession. It is only because of the exemplary address of Mr. Dutt that we are unable to pass any order as to costs. Stay of operation of this judgment and order is prayed for but it is unhesitatingly refused. Parties eventually deserve to get back possession of their property after 50/60 years.” 9. After disposal of the said appeal, the State authorities moved a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court, but the Hon’ble Apex Court refused to interfere against the order impugned. Even thereafter, the State-Respondents did not deliver possession to the appelants/landlords. Parties eventually deserve to get back possession of their property after 50/60 years.” 9. After disposal of the said appeal, the State authorities moved a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court, but the Hon’ble Apex Court refused to interfere against the order impugned. Even thereafter, the State-Respondents did not deliver possession to the appelants/landlords. They again moved a writ petition before the Hon’ble Court and ultimately by an order of this Hon’ble Court, the State-Respondents delivered vacant possession of the Premises No. 14, Hare Street including the tenanted portion of the writ petitioners to the landlords. The State-Respondents also averred in their affidavit-in-opposition that the tenanted portion of the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta was requisitioned and possession was taken from him. On 27th September, 1995 the aforesaid tenanted portion was de-requisitioned and the predecessors of the petitioner were directed to come on the spot on 16th October, 1995 at 1.00 P.M. for taking over vacant possession. It was also stated that the State Government do not have any liability of the said property w.e.f. 27th September, 1995. Subsequently the private respondents being the landlords of the said property filed a writ petition being WP No. 711 of 2011 praying for possession of the premises in question and also payment of compensation. The occupants, for whom the property was requisitioned, also appeared before this Hon’ble Court on rd August, 2011 at the time of hearing of the writ petition being WP No. 711 of 2011, they gave undertaking through its Managing Director that they would vacate the premises in question before 2nd September, 2011 and accordingly the said premises was vacated and thereafter possession was restored to the owners of the property on 21st September, 2011. 10. Mr. Chakraborty, also submitted that the landlords moved several writ petitions questioning the impugned actions of the State respondents at all stages but the tenants, the writ petitioners remained silent. They have neither question the acquisition nor they claim possession of the premises after de-requisitioned since they have lost all interest over the property. Mr. 10. Mr. Chakraborty, also submitted that the landlords moved several writ petitions questioning the impugned actions of the State respondents at all stages but the tenants, the writ petitioners remained silent. They have neither question the acquisition nor they claim possession of the premises after de-requisitioned since they have lost all interest over the property. Mr. Chakraborty submitted that this Hon’ble Court on different occasions directed to deliver the possession of those two premises to the landlords but unfortunately State Authorities did not hand over the possession and they were compelled to move another writ application in 2011 and pursuant to the order passed in that writ application, petitioners got the possession on 21st September, 2011. Mr. Chakraborty submitted that the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this High Court directing delivery of possession was questioned before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed the judgment and order passed by this Court in both the appeals. 11. He also submitted that if the writ petitioners want to get any variation of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court they are to apply before the Supreme Court. He further submits that everything has attained finality and there is no scope to interfere with the order passed by the Hon’ble Court in this writ jurisdiction. Mr. Chakraborty also submitted that petitioners approach this Court after a long delay, therefore, the writ petitioner should be dismissed on that ground alone. He also submitted that the writ petitioners were watching this proceeding and they did not take any proper steps in appropriate time and he cited decisions reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court, Page 112, Paragraph 7, AIR 1986, Volumn 4, SCC page 566, para 24, AIR 2008, Volumn 17, SCC 668, Para 17. He also submitted that section 10 of the West Bengal Premises (Requisition and Control) Act 1947 is of no application after invocation of Land Acquisition Act and after the order passed by the Learned Single Judge as well as appellate Court. He also submitted this Court cannot sit in appeal over the orders of Court. Further the matter involves disputed questions of fact. Therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed. 12. Learned Counsel for the State submits that no step was taken on the side of the petitioner to take possession of the tenanted portion. He also submitted this Court cannot sit in appeal over the orders of Court. Further the matter involves disputed questions of fact. Therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed. 12. Learned Counsel for the State submits that no step was taken on the side of the petitioner to take possession of the tenanted portion. It was also contended that Constituted Attorney was not present at the spot on 16th October, 1995. The respondents have denied that the possession upon the premises is derequisitioned, is required to be handed over to the legal representative of the erstwhile tenant of the premises in question despite that they have lost all right and interest therein since the date of requisition. 13. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. It is evident that possession of the tenanted portion of the writ petitioners being successors of Ganesh Chandra Dutta the original tenant, since deceased was taken from the said Ganesh Chandra Dutta on September 30, 1959 at 4.30 p.m. It also appears from records that Ganesh Chandra Dutta was paid rent compensation up to January 1994. After the death of said Ganesh Chandra Dutta one cheque was issued by the concerned state respondent, the Land Acquisition Collector. However, that could not be encashed in view of death of Ganesh Chandra Dutta. The writ petitioners have disclosed the cheque dated 30th March, 1995 in their writ application. It also appears from the affidavit of the state respondents as well as from the writ petition that by a notice dated 10th October, 1995 Land Acquisition Collector directed the Deputy Secretary, Cottage & Small Scale Industries, Writers’ Buildings, Calcutta 700001 and the Managing Director, West Bengal Ceramic Development Corporation Ltd., 14, Hare Street Calcutta 700001 to make over possession of the said tenanted portion to Ganesh Chandra Dutta on 16th October 1993 at 1 p.m. through the Office Surveyor & Valuer Shri S.S. Chakladar. It was also cautioned that if they failed to vacate on that day then police help will be taken to remove them from the said premises. It was also pointed out that they are continuing in occupation of de-requisitioned premises with effect from 27th September 1995 at their own risk and cost and the State Government does not have any liability in this respect. It was also pointed out that they are continuing in occupation of de-requisitioned premises with effect from 27th September 1995 at their own risk and cost and the State Government does not have any liability in this respect. A copy of the said letter was forwarded to Ganesh Chandra Dutta, Proprietor of “Binod Behari Nag and Ganesh Chandra Dutta” of 5 and 8, Hair Street Calcutta 1 and Ganesh Chandra Dutta was requested to attend on the spot on 16th October, 1995 at 1 p.m. for taking over vacant possession from Office Surveyor & Valuer Shri S.S. Chakladar. However, it is relevant to point out that on that date the occupants did not vacate the premises as it appears from the affidavit in opposition filed by the State respondent. Those occupants came before this Hon’ble Court and gave an undertaking that they will vacate the premises which was recorded in earlier paragraphs. It appears that the premises were not vacated by the occupants on 16th October 1995 and the possession could not be delivered to the tenant or his successors. However, Ganesh Chandra Dutta was not alive on that occasion. It appears from records that sometimes in 1991 a notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 was issued in respect of entire 14, Hare Street including the tenanted portion. The landlords being aggrieved by the impugned notification moved a writ petition being matter no.1382 of 1991 which was disposed of by an order dated 5th September, 1991 quashing the impugned notification on the ground that the provisions of Section 49 of the Act were not considered. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings was set aside. Again in 1993 the landlords moved another writ application being matter no.3790 of 1993. It appears from the order of the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioners moved this Hon’ble Court for a direction upon the respondents that is the Land Acquisition Collector to hand over the tenanted portion of premises no.14, Hare Street, Calcutta. In that matter this Hon’ble Court passed the following order: “The concerned Land Acquisition Collection, Calcutta is directed to deliver possession of aforesaid second floor of the premises no.14, Hare Street, Calcutta to the writ petitioners within four months from the date of communication of this order Mr. Maitra appearing with Mrs. In that matter this Hon’ble Court passed the following order: “The concerned Land Acquisition Collection, Calcutta is directed to deliver possession of aforesaid second floor of the premises no.14, Hare Street, Calcutta to the writ petitioners within four months from the date of communication of this order Mr. Maitra appearing with Mrs. Chatterjee submits on instruction that a proposal has been made by the State Government to acquire the said premises. Therefore, it will be open to the respondents to acquire the property of the said premises of the writ petitioner in accordance with the law. In the event, the said premises is acquired then the question of delivery of possession within the time specified hereinabove in terms of this order shall not arise at all.” 14. It appears that the learned Judge passed an order directing the Land Acquisition Collector to deliver the possession of the second floor which includes aforementioned tenanted portion to the landlords. Against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18th August, 1993 the writ petitioners preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and questioned the order impugned. The Hon’ble Division Bench disposed of the appeal on 18th April, 1994 and the following order was passed:- “We are conscious of the contentions raised by the appellants in this regard, but we think that we cannot prevent the State authorities to acquire the premises in question in accordance with the law after ad-hearing to the proper formalities as delineated in statue. Some steps have already been taken in this regard in the meantime. Till such time the acquisition proceedings are complete, the respondents cannot however take advantage of the situation and continue at old rare of compensation which was fixed amount 40 to 50 years before. In one case the requisition was made in 1994 and in other case it was in 1956. We would, accordingly, direct the respondent authorities to pay by way of ad-interim measure a monthly compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.ft. confirming to the market rate for their occupation with a further direction upon the state respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings within a period of six months from this date. We would, accordingly, direct the respondent authorities to pay by way of ad-interim measure a monthly compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.ft. confirming to the market rate for their occupation with a further direction upon the state respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings within a period of six months from this date. If this proceeding are not complete by that date, the mandate as passed by the Learned Trial Judge should definitely be operative and the writ petitioners, the present appellants, would be entitled to get back the possession of disputed premises in accordance with the law. By virtue of this interim order passed, we think there is nothing left with the present appeals. The appeals are treated as on the day’s list and stand disposed of.” 15. After the disposal of the appeal the respondents Land Acquisition Collector issued notifications under Section (4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as well as under Sub-section 4 of Section 17 of the said Act. In respect of two premises being premises number 12, Hare Street and premises no.14, Hare Street. The landlords filed the writ petitions against the aforementioned two notices issued in respect of two premises being WP No.870 of 1996 and WP No.863 of 1996. The landlords failed to get success before the Trial Court and they moved two appeals before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court. Ultimately, the Hon’ble Division Bench quashed the acquisition proceedings and resultantly the requiring authority and acquiring authority was declared in unauthorized occupation and they were to hand over possession to the landlords. The Hon’ble Appellate Court recorded that five and half years of unauthorized occupation of respondents required to be appropriately compensated. It was recorded that the area in regard to 12/1 Hare Street is more or less 2300 sq. ft. and the total floor area of 14 heir street is somewhat about 13 and ½ thousand sq. ft and it was also recorded that roughly 1/3rd of it is liable to be restored to the landlords /appellants and the balance 2/3rd being under tenancy. The Hon’ble Appeal Court directed that at least 6000 sq. ft of floor area has to be compensated. Rent compensation was assessed Rs.6000/- a month and which comes about Rs.40 lakhs. It was directed that possession shall be handed over by the respondents through their officers, agents, servants and/or their authorized representative forthwith. The Hon’ble Appeal Court directed that at least 6000 sq. ft of floor area has to be compensated. Rent compensation was assessed Rs.6000/- a month and which comes about Rs.40 lakhs. It was directed that possession shall be handed over by the respondents through their officers, agents, servants and/or their authorized representative forthwith. It appears from records that in all these proceedings although the entire premises 14, Hare Street was dealt with in which the tenanted portion is included but the neither the tenants nor their successor were made parties to these proceedings. The landlords obtained orders in respect of the two premises including the tenanted portion of 14, Hare Street behind the back of the Tenants/Their successors although possession was taken from the tenant. It is also surprising that the State respondents who are aware of such tenancy and who have taken possession from the tenant, did not also disclose in any of these proceedings that a portion of 2nd floor of 14, Hare Street was de-requisition in 1995 and the occupants were directed to vacate the portion and the tenant was communicated to get back the possession from the representative of the Land Acquisition Collector but possession could not be given since the “tenancy portion” was not vacated by the occupants. In that way orders were obtained before this Court without making the tenant and/or the successors as party respondent in those proceedings. It appears from records that in all these proceedings nowhere the concerned landlords, the private respondents here, did mention that the tenancy portion of 14, Hare Street is required to be handed over to the concerned tenants or their successors since the tenancy is heritable one under the relevant rent laws prevailing at that relevant point of time. Moreover, as per Section 10 of West Bengal Requisition and Control (temporary provisions) Act, specially requisitioned property taken by State is required to be returned after de-requisition to the party from whom the possession was taken but that was not done in this case. Although the landlords questioned the acquisition of those two premises by filing writ petition before this Court, but then by questioning those two acquisition proceedings they did not get any right to vacate the tenants by obtaining orders behind their back without taking due process of law under the Rent Act. Although the landlords questioned the acquisition of those two premises by filing writ petition before this Court, but then by questioning those two acquisition proceedings they did not get any right to vacate the tenants by obtaining orders behind their back without taking due process of law under the Rent Act. It is also evident from the records that the landlords never served any notice terminating the tenancy nor did they take any step for recovery of possession in accordance with law. It also appears that the landlords took steps to vacate the tenant’s portion without following due process of law under the Rent Act prevailing at the relevant point of time. In this regard it is relevant to point out the judgment of this Hon’ble Court reported in 1992 (Volumn 2) CHN page 187 (Saroj Kumar Mukherjee & Ors. –vs- State of West Bengal and Ors. wherein after careful consideration of these provisions, this Hon’ble Court held that, if the State Government on requisition takes physical possession from a citizen then the State Government should also hand over the de-requisitioned premises to the citizen from whom such possession has been taken. 16. Section 10 of the aforementioned Act was considered and it was interpreted that the Government if takes possession from some one, it is the obligation of the Government to hand over possession to that person from whom possession was taken. Further, under the said section, it is the duty of the State Government to make enquiry and to specify by order in writing that the person to whom delivery of possession of the requisitioned premises shall be made. In case, it is not readily found or traceable that the concerned person from whom the possession was taken has no agent or other person empowered to accept delivery on his behalf the State Government shall publish in the official gazette a notice declaring that such premises is released from requisition and shall cause a copy thereof to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the said premises. 17. The State Government in their affidavit did not deal with the same and there is no evidence that after the death of said Ganesh Chandra Dutta any such steps was taken on behalf of the respondents’ authorities. 17. The State Government in their affidavit did not deal with the same and there is no evidence that after the death of said Ganesh Chandra Dutta any such steps was taken on behalf of the respondents’ authorities. It is also pertinent to mention that in the year 2011 when the landlord once again moved this Hon’ble Court for taking possession of both the said premises they also did not make the tenant and/or their successors as party respondents to the proceedings specially when 14 Hare Street include a portion of tenancy of said Ganesh Chandra Dutta since deceased from whom possession was taken. The order was obtained for delivery of possession behind the back of the tenants. Ultimately the State Respondents delivered the possession to the landlord on 21st September, 2011, which the writ petitioner came to know subsequently and thereafter moved this writ petition for a direction upon the State Respondents to hand over de-requisitioned premises being eastern portion of 2nd floor at 14, Hare Street, Kolkata to the petitioners and to make payment of the said rent compensation subject to the satisfaction of the petitioners about assessment of such rent compensation in respect of de-requisitioned premises. 18. Therefore, it is evident that the landlord at all stages have obtained orders before this Hon’ble Court for delivery of possession of both the said premises including the tenanted portion of the writ petitioners without making them as party respondents and without even pointing out that the tenanted portion should be handed over to the tenant. 19. In my view, there is an obligation on the States authorities to deliver vacant possession of the tenanted portion to the tenant and in the instant case to the successor of the deceased tenant as required under Section 10 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control Act, 1947. But the State-Respondents acted contrary to law and connived with the landlords and also delivered possession to the landlords. By this time it is also settled that the landlords cannot evict a tenant by filing writ petition and without taking due process of applicable rent laws. I do not find any substance in the submissions of Mr. Chakraborty that section 10 of the aforementioned Act does not apply when acquisition notice was issued against the property. By this time it is also settled that the landlords cannot evict a tenant by filing writ petition and without taking due process of applicable rent laws. I do not find any substance in the submissions of Mr. Chakraborty that section 10 of the aforementioned Act does not apply when acquisition notice was issued against the property. Mere issuance of acquisition notice or even in case of acquisition the right of the tenant does not evaporate. Therefore, even if acquisition notice is not challenged by the tenant or his successors or by any of them, that does not disentitle them to get back possession of their tenancy portion. Thus, questioning the acquisition notice and/or acquisition proceedings by the landlords do not create any embargo to application of section 10 of the West Bengal Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act. It is also pertinent to mention the landlords did not challenge the 1995 notice issued by the concerned authority for handing over possession to the tenant. The State-Respondents also remained silent on the issue for the reasons best known to them. Further it is also worth mentioning that the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court specifically divided the owners’ portion and tenants’ portion but in spite of such division the tenants’ portion was not given to the tenant. Therefore, the State respondents who are responsible for all these collusive acts ought to have informed this Court that the possession which was taken from the tenant should be delivered to the tenant or their successors. It is also evident that Government’s claim to the effect that none of the representatives of the tenants have come to take possession on the scheduled date as per notice given in 1995, is also not correct. In this regard, it is important to point out that the State Government in their affidavit-in-opposition have pointed out that the occupants of that portion have come before this Hon’ble Court and gave an undertaking that they will vacate the premises in question on or before 2nd September, 2011. In that view of the matter, it is crystal clear that State respondents have made untrue and incorrect statements before this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, there is no scope for delivery of vacant possession by the State authorities to the tenant or their successors in 1995. 20. In that view of the matter, it is crystal clear that State respondents have made untrue and incorrect statements before this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, there is no scope for delivery of vacant possession by the State authorities to the tenant or their successors in 1995. 20. On point of delay I do not find any substance since after derequisition the respondent authorities did not get vacant possession of that portion and they were unable to deliver possession to the tenants. Therefore, there is latches on the part of the State which failed to deliver vacant possession to the tenant. In my view, this writ petition is maintainable for the self-same cause of action by a third party when in the earlier proceedings they were not made a party and the orders obtained prejudicial to their interest. The judgment cited by Mr. Chakraborty is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In my view, the State respondents should be directed to get back the possession of the tenanted portion from the landlords and to hand over the same to the writ petitioners and the State Government should also assess the rent compensation of the tenanted portion and to pay the same to the successors of tenants. 21. Accordingly, I direct the State respondents to get back possession of the tenanted portion from the landlord within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the order and to assess the rent compensation of that tenanted portion within the same period and to pay the same to the writ petitioners. They are also directed to deliver the derequisitioned portion of the tenanted premises to the writ petitioners. This disposes of the writ petition. 22. Prayer for stay made by Mr. Chakraborty is considered and refused in the facts and circumstances of this case. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.