Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Amit Bose vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 March, 2016
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1 21.03.2016 WP 6869 (W) of 2010 01 + dd CAN 5040 of 2015 Amit Bose Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Ranjan Deb, sr. adv.
Mr. Utpal Bose, sr. adv.
Mr. R. L. Mitra Ms. Priyanka Dhar ... ... For the petitioner Mr. Tapan Mukherjee, ld. AGP Mr. Samrat Sen, sr. adv. ld. AGP Mr. Amitava Mitra Mr. Somnath Naskar ... ...For the State Mr. N. C. Behani ... ...For the Corporation The petitioner was favoured with allotment of a plot in Salt Lake, Kolkata. Mr. Deb, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits by memo dated 13th July, 2006 an extension of time of six months was granted as being the purport of paragraph 12 in the affidavit-in-opposition. The petitioner thereafter put in a plan for sanction to the municipal authority and applied for a further extension by a letter received by the addressee on 20th June, 2008. The Urban Development Department then by order dated 27th August, 2008 invoked Clause 4 of the lease deed to determine the lease of the petitioner which order is under challenge in this writ petition.
2He submits the purported determination of the lease pursuant to an extension made in July, 2006 after which extension the petitioner submitted a plan for sanction which was awaited, were not circumstances that could lead a reasonable person to find there was no seriousness on the part of the petitioner to take up construction of a building in the plot allotted.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate, Additional Government Pleader, appears on behalf of the State and submits by drawing attention to the impugned order that possession of the plot was allotted to the petitioner as far back as on 28th July, 1989. The petitioner did nothing. The Government issued a show cause notice dated 17th November, 2005 requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the plot should not be resumed by the Government. It is only after this that the petitioner applied for an extension and was allowed the same by memo dated 13th/14th July, 2006. The extension was for six months. Though the petitioner in that time applied for sanction of a plan but such a plan was submitted as could not be sanctioned since it was in violation of the Building Rules. It is thereafter that the petitioner purported to pursue sanction of the plan by resubmitting another after the extended period had expired. Naturally, the Municipal Corporation refused to consider that plan since it was submitted beyond the time of the period of extension. He submits, therefore, the impugned order dated 27th August, 2008 by which the Government invoked Clause 4 of the lease deed and directed resumption of the plot was a good order which should not be interfered with.
3
The impugned order was passed pursuant to the show cause notice dated 17th November, 2005. The petitioner may have been guilty of laches till then but even then that the Government did grant an extension by the said memo dated 13/14th July, 2006. The impugned order has no reference to the extension made after the issuance of the show cause notice. The impugned order is also silent regarding the act of the petitioner in submitting a plan for sanction within the extended period, which plan appears, as not drawn up in conformity with the Building Rules. The said omission mitigates against the finding in the impugned order that there has been no seriousness on the part of the lessee to take up the construction of the building. This Court finds that there is otherwise no allegation against the petitioner as original allottee and lessee.
On query from Court Mr. Mukherjee submits fairly that a peremptory extension of time may be granted by this Court to the petitioner for him to obtain a sanctioned plan within three months and start construction within three months thereafter. Such extension, if directed by this Court, should be on terms made clear to the petitioner that in the event the petitioner is unable to either have the plan sanctioned within the time granted or thereafter unable to commence construction, or complete the building in terms of the lease within a period of three years from the date of the order, the Government, without further ado would be entitled to resume the plot in the condition it is found on the date of consequent entitlement of the Government to resume. Mr. Deb submits his client would sieze and fully utilize this opportunity, if granted. 4
Mr. Behani, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Corporation. He submits the municipality has since been reconstituted to become the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation. He submits the petitioner be directed to make appropriate amendment in the cause title of the writ petition. The petitioner's learned advocate-on-record is granted liberty to incorporate the necessary amendment in the cause title of the petition, in Court. The amendment must be carried out by the petitioner as directed above.
In view of the aforesaid the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner will have three months to have his plan sanctioned. It is submitted that the petitioner would put in a fresh plan for sanction and not pursue the plan already submitted for sanction. Such plan, if submitted within 15th April, 2016, the Corporation must process it for sanction or refusal to so do within 21st June, 2016. The petitioner, upon obtaining sanction, will thereafter have till 21st September, 2016 to commence construction on the plot. In the event of default on the part of the petitioner for reasons attributable to him, the Government will be entitled to immediately resume the plot. On the other hand, if the petitioner complies with the above two conditions he shall have thereafter 2 and ½ years to complete the construction and on default the Government again be entitled to resume the plot.
The writ petition is disposed of. CAN 5040 of 2015 is also disposed of accordingly.
5Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings.
(Arindam Sinha, J.) 6