Calcutta High Court
Bidyut Kundu vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 9 September, 2013
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
WP No.902 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
BIDYUT KUNDU
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
Date : 9th September, 2013.
Appearance:
Mr. Supratim Laha, Adv.
Mr. Arnab Mondal, Adv.
The Court : The petitioner challenges the decision of the West Bengal Housing Board by which the petitioner's application seeking a no-objection for transfer of the plot of land has not been considered and, effectively, rejected.
The housing board has indicated that no prior permission was accorded to the original lessee by the lessor for sub-dividing the plot or transferring the leasehold rights over the plot in favour of any person. It appears that the transferee of the original lessee assigned the rights on September 30, 2005 in favour of the petitioner, again without obtaining the prior approval of the 2 board. The letter of rejection of March 22, 2013 also observes that an ex post facto approval of the unauthorised transfer cannot be considered before a further transfer is proposed. The board has also indicated that every application is dealt with on a case to case basis upon considering the grounds for transfer.
The petitioner says that the petitioner is prepared to pay the appropriate fees that may be sought by the housing board for the purpose of granting approval for regularisation of the transfer in favour of the petitioner and the further transfer in favour of the petitioner's brother.
Merely because the petitioner offers money to get over the illegality committed by the petitioner may not excite the Court to require the payment to be received and the illegality to be glossed over. The rule of law as enshrined in the Constitution does not permit an illegal occupant of any government premises to throw money to overcome the illegality.
Since it is evident from the original document that prior approval of the housing board had to be obtained before the rights in respect thereof could be transferred or assigned and since the petitioner could not have obtained the government property without knowing that prior permission was necessary, it does not appear that the petitioner is as innocent as the petitioner now pretends to be. The offer of money for condonation of the breach is unacceptable.
There does not appear to be any infirmity in the housing board declining the petitioner's application.
WP No.902 of 2013 is unmeritorious and is dismissed without any order as to costs but the housing board is requested to ensure that appropriate 3 steps are expeditiously initiated against the petitioner in respect of the property in question.
Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) bp.