Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Sriram Packaging Products And ... vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 30 September, 2019
1
30.09.2019.
Item No. 41
(W)
W.P. 15501 of 2019
M/s. Sriram Packaging Products and another.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and others.
Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee,
Mr. Kaushik Banerjee,
Ms. Sudipta Paul.
... for the petitioners.
Mr. Rabindra Narayan Dutta,
Mr. Suprabhat Bhattacharjee.
... for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
The grievance of the writ petitioners is that they were granted lease in respect of a plot of land, which was subsequently cancelled after a long gap, in respect of which an order dated 7th February 2018 has been passed. The relevant part of the order is required to be considered, which is as follows:
"AND WHEREAS the possession of the aforesaid plot was handed over to the lessee on 18th August, 1998 vide Possession Certificate No. B-248 dated 18.08.1998;
AND WHEREAS, without utilising the leased out land and without setting up the proposed manufacturing unit of PVC Foam Leather cloth within three years from the date of taking over possession of the demised land, Sri Tarun Kanti Saha, Proprietor of M/s. Sri Ram Packaging Products vide his letter dated 07.03.2008 applied for transferring lease hold rights of the said plot to M/s. Sri Ram Commodeal Pvt. Ltd.;
AND WHEREAS in the public interest and for the purpose of construction of the Major Arterial Road linking Salt Lake to New Town, it was considered expedient to re- enter into possession of the unutilised demised land on an emergency basis;
AND WHEREAS more than 8 years after re-entering into possession of the demised land Sri Saha, Proprietor of M/s. Sri Ram Packaging Products vide his letter dated 04.04.2016 applied to provide him a suitable alternative plot in lieu of the Plot Ap-7, Sector-V, Salt Lake;
AND WHEREAS this Department vide Memo No, 1927- SL(WR)/9L-1/95 dated 28.06.2016 refused to entertain the said prayer of Sri Saha as he had no real intention to set up the proposed project on the demised land which was leased out to him for setting up a manufacturing industry;
AND WHEREAS challenging the said decision of this Department, the lessee filed the Writ Petition No 16723 (W) of 2016 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta;
AND WHEREAS in the said Writ petition, Hon'ble Single Bench of Calcutta High Court passed an order on 03.05.2017 2 directing the respondent State of West Bengal to restore possession of Plot No. AP-7, Sector-V, Salt Lake to the petitioner;
AND WHEREAS being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above judgment State of West Bengal preferred an appeal along with stay application before the Hon'ble Division Bench of Calcutta High Court being numbered as MAT 1072 of 2017 with CAN 6102 of 2017;
AND WHEREAS the Division Bench of Hon'ble Jusstice Biswanath Sommader and Hon'ble Justice Mousumi Bhattacharya in their judgment passed on 21.11.2017 disposed of the said appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 03.05.2017 of the Hon'ble Single Bench;
AND WHEREAS the Major Arterial Road linking Salt Lake to New Town has already been constructed over the said demised land;
NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the aforesaid Judgement dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court and after careful consideration of the matter, the undersigned is directed by order of the Governor to determine the leasehold rights of the demised land i.e., Plot No AP-7, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata - 700091 measuring 8.0433 cottah earlier granted in favour of M\s. Sri Ram Packaging Products for violation of Clause 2(6)(a) of the lease deed and to re-enter into the formal possession of the said plot of land."
By filing this writ application, the writ petitioners pray for a direction for consideration of its representation dated 2nd May 2019.
The order dated 7th February 2018 has not been challenged by the writ petitioners.
I am satisfied as to the reasons disclosed in the order of the Government of West Bengal, Department of Urban Development & Municipal Affairs dated 7th February 2018 and I do not find any further thing is required to be considered by the respondents including the representation of the petitioners dated 2nd May 2019, which is at page 76 being Annexure 'P-10' of the writ application.
After being satisfied about the order passed by the concerned authority as contains in its order dated 7th February 2018, which is at page 73 being Annexure 'P-9', I do not find any merits in this writ application and the same is dismissed.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
ab (Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.)