Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 822 (CAL)

Madhumita Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal

2015-09-24

SANKAR ACHARYYA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sankar Acharyya, J. Initially, this writ application was filed by two petitioners Smt. Madhumita Bhattacharjee and Smt. Reba Mitra against the opposite parties namely (1) The State of West Bengal, (2) The Chairman, Howrah Improvement Trust, (3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer Howrah Improvement Trust and (4) The Estate Officer, Howrah Improvement Trust. During pendency of this case petitioner No. 2 Smt. Reba Mitra expired and her name has been struck out as per order dated 11.6.2014. According to the writ application, Soumendra Kumar Mitra was the owner of 96, Kshetra Banerjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District Howrah measuring 1 cottah 16 ½ sq.ft. land and the residential building thereon. On his death the said property was inherited by his wife Smt. Reba Mitra and only daughter (married) Madhumita Bhattacharjee. For the purpose of construction of approach road of Second Hooghly River Bridge at Howrah side aforesaid property was requisitioned and acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Howrah under Section 11 of the Act I of 1894 in connection with L.A. Case No. 482 II IV (6) of 1985-86. Thereafter, the two petitioners including Reba Mitra, since deceased, delivered possession of the land and building to the Howrah Improvement Trust. Compensation money was awarded and paid to them for such acquisition of the holding 96, Kshetra Banerjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District Howrah. For the purpose of rehabilitation of the evicted persons in the locality flats/accommodation at H.R.B.C. Housing Estate, Domurjala, Ichapur, Howrah were provided to some other persons who lost their residence for the project. The petitioners made several prayers for allotment of a three-room flat at H.R.B.C. Housing Estate, Domurjala, Ichapur, Howrah but no such flat has been provided to them. Petitioners are ready to pay rent and other charges according to Rules and Regulations made by Howrah Improvement Trust for the flat if allotted. Petitioners alleged that they were facing serious trouble for shortage of accommodation but they have been discriminated by the authority concern. Making such allegations inter alia the petitioners filed the writ application for a direction upon the opposite parties to allot a flat to the petitioners for their rehabilitation against acquisition of their land and building of Holding No. 96, Kshetra Banerjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District Howrah. 2. Making such allegations inter alia the petitioners filed the writ application for a direction upon the opposite parties to allot a flat to the petitioners for their rehabilitation against acquisition of their land and building of Holding No. 96, Kshetra Banerjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District Howrah. 2. In the affidavit-in-opposition contending inter alia, it has been contended that there is a scheme for rehabilitation for evicted persons due to the construction of Second Hooghly River Bridge subject to making proper application by the evicted persons before the competent authority. It has been contended that the petitioners of this case never made proper application for rehabilitation in the flats at Domurjala and suddenly, after 20 years of acquisition of the property the petitioners made a representation in 2003 and filed the instant writ application. DIB enquiry was held against prayer of the petitioners before the authority concerned and as per DIB enquiry report the husband of present petitioner namely Pradip Bhattacharjee and the present petitioner were living at the subject property at 96, Kshetra Mohan Banerjee lane since 1982. It is admitted that the house belonged to Soumendra Nath Mitra. He was residing at 2, Andul Road, P.S. Sankrail, District Howrah permanently. Further contention of the opposite party no. 2 is that the present petitioner and her husband used to pay Rs.100 per month to Soumendra Nath Mitra as maintenance charge including electrical and sweeping charges of the house. The husband of the petitioner had their own residence at 166/1, Ram Krishnapur Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District Howrah and they have sufficient accommodation of their own. The flats constructed at Domurjala were allotted at the relevant time of taking possession of the acquired property to those who had no other alternative accommodation. It has been claimed that the writ application is liable to be dismissed as the same has been made with some ulterior motive. Supplementary affidavit has been filed by opposite party no. 2, 3 and 4 jointly and a further supplementary affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by opposite party no. 2 alone. 3. In such supplementary affidavits it has been stated in substance that the husband of the petitioner Madhumita Bhattacharjee has his own residence at 166/1, Ramkrishnapur Lane and as such having alternative accommodation no rehabilitation benefit was awarded to her. The opposite party no. 2 alone. 3. In such supplementary affidavits it has been stated in substance that the husband of the petitioner Madhumita Bhattacharjee has his own residence at 166/1, Ramkrishnapur Lane and as such having alternative accommodation no rehabilitation benefit was awarded to her. The opposite party no. 2 has further stated that as per Notification No. 1703-PWD (MD)/S-1/77 dated 11.4.1980 Howrah Improvement Trust would act as agent of Hooghly River Bridge Commissioner (in short H.R.B.C.) for realisation of the monthly instalments and deposit the same to the fund of H.R.B.C. and the entire cost on account of rehabilitation under phase- I would be borne by the H.R.B.C. As per said notification the list of beneficiaries would be prepared by Howrah Improvement Trust in consultation with District Magistrate, Howrah and approved by H.R.B.C. The terms and conditions of rehabilitation scheme has been published in Government Notification NO. 1909-PWD (MD)/S-1/77 dated 28.4.1980. 4. During life time of petitioner no. 2 one affidavit in reply was filed by petitioners stating inter alia that the petitioner no. 2 was living as a tenant at 2, Andul Road, P.S. Sankrail, District Howrah, at a monthly rent of Rs.600/- which was unbearable to her. Since petitioner no. 1 (at present the sole petitioner) is only child of petitioner no. 2 both the petitioners alongwith husband and two children of petitioner no. 1 lived in that premises. The husband of petitioner no. 1 got only one room in his paternal house which is so small to accommodate the family of petitioner no. 1 said property has been sold out. Before vacating the holding no. 96, Kshetra Mohan Banerjee Lane both the petitioners lived in that holding. 5. Considering the materials available on record it appears that undisputedly the holding no. 96, Kshetra Mohan Banerjee Lane was under occupation of present petitioner with her family and her mother (since deceased) and that holding was acquired for construction of approach road of Second Hooghly River Bridge. Compensation against such acquisition was awarded and paid. No flat was allotted by opposite parties against such acquisition for the purpose of rehabilitation although some others got allotment of flats as land-losers for the project. Prayer was made by the petitioners in 2003 last for allotment of three-room flat to them but it was not allotted. Compensation against such acquisition was awarded and paid. No flat was allotted by opposite parties against such acquisition for the purpose of rehabilitation although some others got allotment of flats as land-losers for the project. Prayer was made by the petitioners in 2003 last for allotment of three-room flat to them but it was not allotted. A ground has been taken by opposite parties that the prayer was belated and the husband of present petitioner has his alternate accommodation. At the time of hearing learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that in the terms and conditions there was no clause to debar any person from getting rehabilitation benefit on the grounds shown by opposite parties. He advanced arguments that the alleged alternate accommodation of petitioner’s husband was so small that he sold out it as insufficient for his family accommodation. 6. As per copy of Notification No. 1703-PWD (MD)/S-1/77 dated 11.4.1980 a special rehabilitation facilities was offered to the persons affected namely, owners, occupiers and tenants. In the Notification No. 1909-PWD (MD)/S-1/77 dated 28.4.1980 for the purpose of rehabilitation of persons affected by construction of Second Hooghly River Bridge on Howrah side eligibility of the affected families has been notified. 7. In my opinion, in the said notifications there is hardly any scope of exercising discretion of the opposite parties to distinguish the persons affected by construction of Second Hooghly River Bridge on Howrah side. From the materials on record I have no hesitation to hold and therefore, I hold that the petitioner is one of the affected persons and is eligible to opt for availing any of the four special rehabilitation facilities. Among four alternatives as per Government Notification No. 1909-PWD (MD)/S-1/77 dated 28.4.1980, petitioner has opted for fourth facility of additional rehabilitation benefit of one three-room flat at normal price payable in 360 monthly instalments. 8. As such, I find and hold that subject to fulfilment, of requisite legal aspects of the opposite parties, by the petitioner, the petitioner Madhumita Bhattacharjee is entitled to additional rehabilitation to be provided by the opposite parties by way of allotment of one three-room flat in HRBC Housing Project at any place in connection with construction of Second Hooghly River Bridge at Howrah side. The opposite parties cannot disqualify the petitioner from her such entitlement. 9. The opposite parties cannot disqualify the petitioner from her such entitlement. 9. As a result, the opposite parties are directed to proceed for allotment and delivery of possession of a three-room flat in favour of petitioner promptly and petitioner is directed to co-operate the opposite parties for all practical purpose without causing delay. The entire process of such allotment and delivery of possession of the flat must be completed within six months from this date observing all legal formalities. Interim restraining order passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 19.5.04 is hereby recalled. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed and disposed of. Urgent certified photocopy, if applied for, be supplied to the parties observing all requisite formalities.