Calcutta High Court
M/S. Ganapati Technology Services ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 April, 2022
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee, Kausik Chanda
OD-6
IA No.GA/1/2020
APO/127/2020
with
WPO/1552/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
M/S. GANAPATI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Vs.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA
Date : April 5, 2022.
Appearance:
Mr. Kishore Datta, Sr. Advocate
Mr Meghnad Dutta, Advocate
Mr. Arindam Paul, Advocate
...for the appellants.
Md. T. M. Siddiqui, Advocate.
Mr. P. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. N. Chatterjee, Advocate
. . . for the State
Mr. Debobrata Banerjee, Advocate
Mr. Samir Kr. Chakraborty, Advocate
. . . for W. B. HIDCO
The Court : The writ petitioners approached the learned Single Judge with,
inter alia, the following prayers :
" (a) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue
commanding the respondent authorities to demarcate the
petitioners' land measuring about 4 cotthas 15 chhitacks and 15 square feet of Plot No. 9, Khatian No.L/R-395/3, 494/2, 196/2, 484/3 and 160/1 of J.L. No. 9 situate at Mouza Teghoria, Police Station - Rajarhat, North 24 Parganas, forthwith;
2
(b) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari do issue directing the respondent authorities to transmit the records of the case so that upon perusal thereof, conscionable justice may be rendered to the petitioners by passing appropriate order;
(c) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Prohibition do issue prohibiting the respondent authorities from disturbing the petitioners' possession of land, measuring about 4 cotthas 15 chhitacks and 15 square feet of Plot No. 9, Khatian No. L/R - 395/3, 494/2, 196/2, 484/3 and 160/1 of J.L. No. 9 situate at Mouza Teghoria, Police Station - Rajarhat, North 24 Parganas, in any manner whatsoever;
(d) Direction be issued, directing the respondent authorities and in particular the respondent no.5 to mutate the name of the petitioner no.1 in the records by disposing with the application of the petitioners dated 12th January 2010, forthwith;"
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding, inter alia, that though the petitioners alleged that a suit had been filed by their predecessor-in-interest, the same was withdrawn in the year 2009. The petitioners thereafter stepped into the shoes of the predecessor-in-interest and therefore were deemed to be bound by the action of their predecessor-in- interest. The learned Single Judge did not find any enforceable legal right which the petitioners could claim. The learned Judge therefore declined to pass any order in favour of the petitioners holding that the petitioner 3 company was a post vesting transferee and could not have a better right than his predecessor-in-interest.
Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge Mr. Kishore Datta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners/appellants has argued before us that the land in dispute is plot No.9 situate at JL No.9, Rajarhat, 24 Parganas (North). Referring to a notification dated December 23, 1998, Mr. Datta submits that only 0.115 acre out of .0465 hectre of the plot no.9 (south eastern portion) was acquired by the relevant acquisition proceeding. Remaining part of plot No.9 was not acquired by the State and the writ petitioners purchased the said land from the original landlord.
Mr. Datta has, further, referred to a notification dated March 10, 2004 issued by the Government of West Bengal whereby the Government permitted transfer, inter alia, with regard to the said plot no.9.
It is the contention of Mr. Datta that admittedly the Government allowed a portion of plot No.9 to be transferred and therefore the learned Single Judge was not right in dismissing the writ petition holding that the writ petitioners/appellants being post vesting transferee did not acquire right, title and interest over the property in question. Mr. Datta submits before this Court that his only prayer is for a direction on the respondents to demarcate the unacquired portion of the land in question which has been purchased by his clients since the statutory notification of the State suggests that the entire part of plot No.9 was not acquired by the State. 4
In course of hearing of this appeal in order to ascertain the factual aspect of the matter affidavits were called for. Accordingly the State as well as the respondent no.3 have filed their affidavits.
It is the case of the respondent No.3 that being the requiring body, it has been given possession over a part of plot No.9 on which they have constructed some utility buildings. It is for the State to clarify which part of the said plot No.9 remains unacquired.
Mr. Siddiqui, learned advocate representing the State has drawn our attention to the affidavit filed by the State. The affidavit of the State goes to suggest that the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners/appellants executed several deeds of conveyance on or about March 6, 1995, with regard to the land in question.
The plaint of the suit being Title Suit No.125 of 2008 filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners/ appellants suggests that the following was the boundary in the relevant Deed of Conveyance:-
"ALL THAT a piece and parcel of 4 Cottah 15 Chittacks and 15 Sq.ft. equivalent to 8 Decimal of Vastu Land together with incomplete structure measuring an area of 100 sq.ft. standing thereon and lying situate at Mouza Teghoria, Police Station Rajarhat, District 24 Parganas (North), Sub-Registration Office Bidhannagar, within the jurisdiction of Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality comprised in Collectorate Touzi No.1074, J.L.No.9, R.S.No.116, C.S.Dag No.4 & 5, R.s.Dag No.9, C.S.Khatian No.170, R.s.Khatian No.179, L.r.Khatian No.395/3, 484/3,196/2, 160/1 and 494/2, Municipal Holding No.RGM/1207, Circle Dhalipara, Ward No.13, 5 together with the Easement Right and Common Passage and butted and bounded by:
On the North By Land of R.S.Dag No.9, part Block 'D'
On the South By land of R.S.Dag No.9, part Block 'F'
On the East By land of R.S.Dag No.11
On the West By Kazi Nazrul Islam Avenue (V.I.P. Road)
Whereas the Schedule of the deeds executed in favour of Ganapati Technology Services Pvt.Ltd. is as follows;-
"All THAT land hereditaments admeasuring an area of 4(four) cuttahs 15(fifteen) chittacks and 15(fifteen) sq.ft. be the same a little more or less comprised in Mouza Village Teghoria, J.L.No.9 Re.Su.No.116 Touzi No.1074 (previously under portion of C.s.Dag Nos.4 and 5 under C.s.Khatian No.170) in R.S. Dag No.9 under R.S.Khatian No.179 corresponding to Khatian Nos.395/3, 484/3, 196/2, 160/1 and 494/2, Police Station Rajarhat within the jurisdiction of Additional District Sub- Regisgtrar, Bidhan Nagar, Salt Lake City, and within the local limits of Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality vide Municipal Holding No.RGM/1207, Circle No.Dhalip[ara, Ward No.13 District of North 24 Parganas, shown in the annexed side plane verged in border RED and the said site plane shall be treated as part and parcel of these presents butted and bounded as follows:
6
On the North : By land in R.S.Dag No.10 (Former Dag No.3)
On the East : By land in R.S.Dag No.11
(Former C.S Dag No.15)
On the South : By land in R.S.Dag No.13,
(Former C.S. Dag No.10) and
On the West : By Calcutta Dum Dum Super Highway in
respect of which Rs.7.03 paise (Rupees seven
and Paise three) only being the proportionate
annual rent is payable to the Government of
West Bengal."
The State submits that the documents relied on by the petitioners do not in any manner suggest that the land purchased by the appellants/petitioners do not fall under the land acquired within Dag No.9. The Schedule to the Deed of Conveyance was at variance with the Schedule to the plaint. The Schedule to the plaint indicated that there existed an incomplete structure on the said land. The subject property falls clearly within the acquired portion of Dag No.9 in the relevant Mouza.
It has been further suggested that the vendor of the writ petitioners/appellants consciously sought leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure since the vendor of the writ petitioners or the writ petitioners thereunder misdescribed the property in the Schedule to the deed. 7
In substance, it is the case of the State that the land in question , which is claimed to have been purchased by the writ petitioners/appellants, falls within the acquired portion of Dag No.9 in the relevant Mouza.
The prayer of demarcation, in the context of the pleadings of the parties before this Court, cannot be allowed. While the writ petitioners suggest that they have purchased a part of the Plot-9 which was not acquired by the State, it is the specific case of the State that the writ petitioners indeed have purchased the land which had been acquired by the State. This factual dispute cannot be adjudicated by this Court.
The factual stand taken by the writ petitioners, is disputed by the State. We are also not in a position to ascertain, as on date, who is in possession of the disputed land in question. These factual disputes do not entail any relief in exercise of power of a Writ Court.
The petitioners may approach the civil Court for redressal of their grievances if they are entitled to do so in accordance with law With the aforesaid observations, this appeal and the connected application are dismissed.
(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.) (KAUSIK CHANDA, J.) pa/ssaha