Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1066 (CAL)

Bikram Dasgupta v. State of West Bengal

2016-12-22

DEBI PROSAD DEY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Debi Prosad Dey, J. 1. This writ application has been filed for cancelling memo no. 1298/A/KMDA/MM/EC/GRH/W-09/99 dated 19th September, 2011 issued by the Special Secretary, Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (annexure P/16) as well as the decision taken in the 16th meeting of land and flat allotment committee. 2. On the prayer of the petitioners the Deputy Director of Co-operative Society (Calcutta Metropolitan area), West Bengal provisionally allotted the name of Krishna Radha Housing Co-operative Society towards forming of a co-operative housing society. Such co-operative housing society was formed for the purpose of obtaining a plot of land measuring more or less 5 Kathas under the East-Calcutta area development project group housing scheme of the then Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (now Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority). The aforesaid co-operative society accordingly applied for a plot of land and the Deputy Director (M & M) the then Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority issued a letter vide memo no. 1108/CMDA/ECADP/GRH/III/W-8 dated 14th June, 1999 informing the petitioners that on the basis of lottery through computer held on 12th May, 1999, plot no. HATI/GRH/8 in Group III measuring more or less 4.35 Katha at the rate of Rs. 85,000/- per Katha out of the plots subsequently generated under the aforesaid scheme was allotted in favour of the petitioners subject to payment of the installments regularly towards final satisfaction of the entire amount and subject to production of the registration certificate of such co-operative society. 3. The petitioners had duly paid the entire amount as per the terms and conditions given by the respondents but could not produce the registration certificate as one of the members of the co-operative society went abroad and could not come back in time. However, that matter was duly informed to the respondents and the respondents were accordingly extending time to the petitioners for submission of such certificate of registration of their co-operative society. The respondents have admitted in their affidavit in opposition that the petitioners have duly paid all the installments as per the direction of the respondents and that a provisional certificate was issued by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society (housing co-operative) to the petitioners. 4. All on a sudden the Special Secretary, Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority issued a letter being memo no. 4. All on a sudden the Special Secretary, Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority issued a letter being memo no. 1298/KMDA/MM/EC/GRH/W-8/99 dated 19th September, 2011 addressed to the president of Krishna Radha Cooperative Housing Society stating inter-alia that the allotment to Krishna Radha Co-operative Housing Society Limited in 1999 through lottery has been cancelled by 16th meeting of land and flat allotment committee for the reasons that the petitioners could not produce the certificate of registration of the co-operative group housing society from the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society. The respondents have also annexed the decision of the committee vide annexure R-1. The relevant portion may be reproduced below:- “Matter of Krishna Radha Co-op:- Krishna Radha Co-op. had been allotted a plot in 1999. They made full payment for the land but as they did not register the co-op before the DRCS, they were not handed over the plot. Inadvertently, the same plot was allotted, in 2009 to Emerald Co-op who have made full payment and also completed the registration from DRCS(The Committee decided that as Krishna Radha Co-op. had not completed the registration process which was a condition of allotment, they are no longer entitled to the plot and the allotment should be cancelled. However, KMDA, may allot them an alternative plot but at current rates. The plot in question will be handed over the Emerald Co-op as they have completed all the required formalities. Special Secretary, KMDA, informed the Committee that there are similar such cases wherein one plot has been allotted twice. Chairman, LFAC, expressed concern over the lack of accountability on the part of the responsible sectors and persons.” 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such letter the petitioners have approached this writ Court for issuance of a direction to cancel the letter issued by respondent no. 4 as well as the decision of the committee and for further direction upon the respondents not to disturb the land which was allotted in favour of the petitioner. 6. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the respondent did not even care to give any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners at the time of taking such decision. Secondly, the respondent did not return a single farthing to the petitioners simultaneously at the time of taking such decision by the respondent. 6. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the respondent did not even care to give any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners at the time of taking such decision. Secondly, the respondent did not return a single farthing to the petitioners simultaneously at the time of taking such decision by the respondent. Thirdly, the resolution of the respondents clearly reveals that due to inadvertence the said plot was allotted in the year 2009 to Emerald co-operative ignoring the letter of allotment of the present petitioners. It is evident from the said resolution that one plot has been allotted twice by the authority and the chairman himself has expressed concern over the lack of accountability of responsible sectors and persons. 7. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also relied on such resolution to the effect that committee also decided to allot an alternative plot to the present petitioners. In that view of this case the respondents have virtually admitted about the claim of the present petitioners and they may be directed to provide the self – same plot if not an alternative plot to the present petitioners without escalation of price since it was the fault of the respondents for which the present petitioners have been suffering. 8. Learned Advocate for the contesting respondents contended that the petitioner could not comply with the mandatory provision of production of the certificate of registration within time and there was no alternative but to cancel the allotment of the petitioners. However learned Advocate for the contesting respondent could not develop anything more than the resolution taken by the respondent authorities in its 16th meeting of the land and flat allotment committee held on 19th January, 2011 in the conference room of Unnayan Bhavan, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091 which has already been quoted in the forgoing paragraphs. 9. It is apparent from the aforesaid resolution of the respondents that the petitioners have cleared all the instalments and thereby paid the entire amount. That goes to show that part of the condition has been complied with by the petitioners. Provisional registration certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioners by the Deputy Registrar (co-operative housing society) and the matter was pending for obtaining final certificate of registration. One of the members went abroad and that is why the matter was not finalised within time. Provisional registration certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioners by the Deputy Registrar (co-operative housing society) and the matter was pending for obtaining final certificate of registration. One of the members went abroad and that is why the matter was not finalised within time. However, the respondents did not raise any objection for non-submission of certificate of registration within time and the respondents have virtually allowed the petitioner to regularize the said matter. In the meantime, the petitioners have completed the registration and final certificate of registration has been issued from the office of Deputy Registrar (housing co-operative society). The respondents inadvertently allotted the self-same plot to Emerald Co-operative Society ignoring the fact that the said land has already been allotted in favour of the present petitioners. The committee has also decided that an alternative plot may be allotted to the present petitioners. The Special Secretary respondent no. 4 has informed the committee that there was lack of accountability on the part of responsible persons and that is why one plot has been allotted twice and some plot has been allotted inadvertently to some other co-operative society ignoring the already existing allotment. It is thus clear from such resolution that the respondents in order to suppress their own irresponsible act had cancelled the allotment of the present petitioners taking a frivolous plea since the land of the petitioners has been inadvertently allotted to Emerald co-operative society way back in the year 2009. In that view of this matter, it is crystal clear that the respondents cannot avoid their responsibility and liability and they cannot take such frivolous plea of non-production of the certificate of registration by the petitioners. The respondents will thus be bound to accept the case of the petitioners since they cannot reap advantage of their own fault. 10. It may be mentioned here that the respondents are in no way entitled to get any enhanced price in respect of allotment of land to the petitioners since the process was started in the year 2009 and the petitioners have paid such amount in terms of the demand of the respondents within the stipulated period. Therefore, question of enhancing the rate of land at this stage does not arise. The letter issued by respondent no. 4 being memo no. 1298/KMDA/MM/EC/GRH/W-09/99 dated 19th September, 2011 is thus cancelled. Therefore, question of enhancing the rate of land at this stage does not arise. The letter issued by respondent no. 4 being memo no. 1298/KMDA/MM/EC/GRH/W-09/99 dated 19th September, 2011 is thus cancelled. The resolution of 16th meeting of land flat allotment committee held on 19th January, 2011 in the conference room of Unnayan Bhavan, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091 in respect of agenda relating to the matter of Krishna Radha Cooperative Society is also set aside to the extent of cancellation of the allotment of land of Krishna Radha Co-operative Society. The contesting respondents specifically respondent no. 4 being the Special Secretary of Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority is thus directed to provide alternative land to the petitioners in the self-same locality within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order subject to production of the certificate of registration by the petitioners. The writ petition is thus disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. 11. No order as to costs. Later: After delivery of judgment, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the order passed by this Court be stayed. After hearing learned Advocates for both the parties and after going through the facts and circumstances of this case the prayer for stay is considered and rejected.