Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 967 (CAL)

Sonata Foundation v. State of West Bengal

2012-10-17

JOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2012
ORDER For setting up of a Nursery in the proposed green area of AA-1B in New Town, an area of 2977 square meter (approx.) was given to the petitioner on permissive possession on purely temporary basis on the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter dated 28th June, 2010, written by the Chief Engineer (Estate Management) of West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, addressed to the petitioner, namely, Sonata Foundation, Kolkata. Possession of the said land was handed over to the petitioner on 1st July, 2010. Subsequently, permission was also granted to the petitioner for construction of temporary structure inside the premises on 17th July, 2010. Administrative approval and financial sanction were accorded for an amount of Rs. 6,63,000/- only for setting up a Nursery in the said premises. In the work order, which was issued on 24th September, 2010, it was mentioned in column 3 that the said administrative approval and/or financial sanction were given for the period of work during the year of 2010-11. 2. Pursuant to the said work order issued by the concerned authority, the petitioner herein carried out the work of setting up a nursery in the said plot of land by spending a sum of Rs.6,16,875/- and the bill showing incurring such expenses by the petitioner for setting up the said nursery therein was forwarded to the Chief Engineer (Estate Management), HIDCO Ltd., by the petitioner along with a letter written by the Secretary of the petitioner company on 11th April, 2011. 3. Subsequently, by a letter written by the Senior Architect, NKDA, dated 15th March, 2012, the petitioner was asked to stop all activities of raising structure in the said premises on the ground that work of construction with bricks were being made without obtaining sanction from the sanctioning authority of NKDA. Ultimately, the allotment of the said plot of land to the petitioner was revoked by a notice issued by the Estate Manager, HIDCO Ltd., dated 2nd April, 2012, on the ground that the said plot of land falls within the area earmarked for BD Block Park and New Town-Kolkata Development Authority had started preparation for construction of the park over the said plot of land which was required for the use of the Township. By the said notice the petitioner was called upon to return the said land to WB HIDCO Ltd. within 15 days from the date of issue of the said letter, in its original condition. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner submitted a representation before the authority for recall of the said order of revocation but the petitioners such prayer was not allowed by the concerned authority vide its order dated 22nd March, 2012, appearing at page 81 of this writ petition. 4. The legality and/or propriety of the said order passed by the sanctioning authority, New Town Kolkata Development Authority on 22nd March, 2012, appearing at page 81 of this writ petition, is under challenge herein. 5. In course of hearing of this writ petition, the petitioner has submitted before this Court the details of the expenses which the petitioner incurred for the said project wherefrom it appears that a sum of Rupees 5,42,28,000/- was spent by the petitioner on different heads for setting up the said nursery in the said plot of land. The petitioner claims that, in the event the petitioner is not permitted to retain the said plot of land, then the WB HIDCO Ltd. should sufficiently compensate the petitioner so that the petitioner does not loose the amount of money which the petitioner has spent for setting the said nursery therein. 6. Mr. Banerjee, Ld. Senior counsel, appearing for the HIDCO, submitted that the said plot of land was allotted to the petitioner for a temporary period on permissive possession for setting up a nursery only. He further submitted that instead of setting up a nursery therein, the petitioner made some construction of permanent nature without taking prior permission from the concerned authority. He further submitted that the said land is also required by the concerned authority for the purpose of construction of the park for its use in the township. As such, the temporary allotment was cancelled by the concerned authority. Mr. Banerjee ultimately submitted that since the land was allotted for a temporary period on permissive possession, the petitioner cannot claim any compensation for revocation of the permission. 7. This court finds much substance in the submission of Mr. As such, the temporary allotment was cancelled by the concerned authority. Mr. Banerjee ultimately submitted that since the land was allotted for a temporary period on permissive possession, the petitioner cannot claim any compensation for revocation of the permission. 7. This court finds much substance in the submission of Mr. Banerjee and as such this Court does not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order, particularly in view of the fact that no damages can be awarded for revocation of temporary licence which was granted in favour of the petitioner without creating any right in favour of the petitioner in the land in question. That apart, even assuming that the contract was terminated wrongfully still then, remedy lies before the Civil Court for damages. This Court thus, cannot grant the relief which the petitioner has claimed in this writ petition. 8. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of with the above observation. 9. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible. Petition dismissed.