Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 10 (CAL)

Pallishree Limited v. State of West Bengal

2017-01-04

MIR DARA SHEKO, RAKESH TIWARI

body2017
Rakesh Tiwari, J:- 1. Heard Mr. Santimoy Panda assisted by Mr. Tapas Kr. Sil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. K. Gupta, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. J. K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the State. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner-company had 34 shareholders and 143.82 acres of land which the petitioner-company was allowed to retain under Section 6(1)(j) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. The petitioner-company was allowed to retain the entire land providing benefit of Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 to it. On 3rd February, 1986 the company sold 13 decimals of its land aforesaid i.e. out of 42 decimals from plot no.1567 and 03 decimals of land out of 1.22 acres of land from plot no.1571 to respondent no.6, M/s. Pally Shree Weigh Bridge. 3. Case no.6/Hooghly of 2001 was initiated before the B.L. & L.R.O. Arambagh under the amended provision of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act without providing the benefits of Section 14Q(1) of the Act. The company was allowed to retain only 24.22 acres of land and the remaining land of the company was declared vested in the State Government i.e. 34 decimals out of 42 decimals in plot no.1567 was declared vested and the entire 1.22 acres of land in plot no.1571 was declared vested in the Government. 4. Aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the company before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed by order dated 29th August, 2003. Consequently, notification dated 18.09.2003 was published, notifying 19.10.2003 as the appointed date from which date the provisions under Section 14A(1) of the Act would stand deleted. 5. An O.A. no.3401 of 2003 was dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2005. Consequently, a writ petition being W.P.L.R.T. No.126 of 2006 against order of the Tribunal was preferred wherein an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession was passed and the petitioner-company was further directed not to part, transfer or assign any portion of the subject land till 30th July, 2006. Liberty to apply for extension of the aforesaid ad interim order of status quo which is informed by the parties be still in force. 6. The relevant portion of the ad interim order dated 2.3.2006 reads thus : “Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Liberty to apply for extension of the aforesaid ad interim order of status quo which is informed by the parties be still in force. 6. The relevant portion of the ad interim order dated 2.3.2006 reads thus : “Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. In this writ application the judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 30th November, 2005 has been impugned. By the said judgment the learned Tribunal has upheld the vires of Land Reforms Amendment Act 2003 particularly deletion of the provisions of Section 14-Q(1) of West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that notice has been given to the learned Advocate General and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Advocate General has appeared. The learned Counsel for the State Respondent prays for time to file affidavit-in-opposition. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within four weeks, reply, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. In the meantime status quo as regards possession of the land in question shall be maintained till 30th July, 2006. Liberty apply for extension of the interim order. This Court also makes it clear that till the aforesaid date the petitioner will not part with or transfer or assign any portion of the land in question to any other third party.” 7. It appears that the company received a notice dated 15.2.2014 from the B.L. & L.R.O., Arambagh by which was directing officers of the company to be present before the said authority on 28.2.2014. The representative of the company appeared before the B.L.& L.R.O. on the said date, but the case was adjourned to 7.3.2014 on which date the representative again appeared before the authority. He then came to know that case no.16 of 2014 was initiated by the B.L.& L.R.O. in terms of an ex parte order of the Tribunal on 28.11.2013 in O.A. no.3026 of 2013 against the petitioner-company, wherein the Tribunal had directed the B.L.& L.R.O. to consider the application of the petitioner (respondent no.6 herein) under Section 14U(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act in respect of plot no.1571 as well as the application for mutation in respect of plot no.1567. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the company was arrayed as a party to the said O.A. before the Tribunal but no notice was served upon it at any point of time, hence hearing was adjourned by the authority. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the company was arrayed as a party to the said O.A. before the Tribunal but no notice was served upon it at any point of time, hence hearing was adjourned by the authority. 8. The representative of the company against appeared before the B.L.&L.R.O. on 19.6.2014 and produced the injunction order of the High Court before him. The authority directed the parties to submit the written note/argument which was submitted by the parties. 9. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that since the lands in question are involved in W.P.L.R.T. No.126 of 2006, the B.L.& L.R.O. disposed of the proceeding being Case no.16 of 2014, by adjourning the matter till the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition. In the meantime the company again received a notice from the B.L.& L.R.O., Arambagh for being present on 2.8.2016 on which date the representative of the company appeared before him and was informed that in a contempt proceeding being M.A. No.582 of 2014, the Tribunal by its order dated 17.5.2016 had directed the Authority to dispose of the application for mutation of respondent no.6 within three months from the date of communication of the order and to file compliance report on 8.9.2016. However, in order to get the said ex parte order varied or modified, the petitioner company prayed for one month time which was granted fixing the next date on 02.09.2016. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this petition has been preferred by the petitioner-company. 11. The facts not in dispute are that the company had sold part of the land as stated above to respondent no.6 on 3.2.1986. This part of the land was subsequently said to have been vested in the State Government in a proceeding under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Therefore, the question of compensation or any dispute pertaining to part of the land sold by the company to respondent no.6 is said to be vested in the State Government would be in between respondent no.6 and the State Government. The petitioner has neither any legal right over the land sold by him to respondent no.6 in the year 1986 for which he had received sale consideration from him nor has any role to play in this matter. 12. The petitioner has neither any legal right over the land sold by him to respondent no.6 in the year 1986 for which he had received sale consideration from him nor has any role to play in this matter. 12. For all the reasons stated above, in our considered view, the petitioner has no locus standi in this matter. It is accordingly dismissed. 13. No order as to costs.