Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sukla Das & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 1 May, 2024
01.05.2024 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ct. no.654 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
Sl. No.139
ab ,,
WPA 19550 of 2004
,
Sukla Das & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Saptangshu Basu, Ld. Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ayan Banerjee
Ms. Debashree Dhamali
Ms. Riya Ghosh
..for the petitioners
Mr. Soumitra Bandopadhyay
Mr. Priyabrata Batabyal
..for the State
By the present writ petition, the petitioners have
sought for revalidation of the allotment of Plot No. 12 in
Block-EC, Sector-I, Salt Lake city, Kolkata.
The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners by
dint of letter no. 2595-SL(AL) dated 12th August, 1975
was offered a plot of land in the Salt Lake City Extension
Scheme in Sector- I of the Salt Lake Township, to take a
lease for a period of 999 years on payment of a premium
or selami charged at the average rate of Rs. 7,000/- per
cottah. The petitioners contended that they accepted the
said offer and deposited an amount of Rs. 17,500/- as
initial premium or selami for the said plot of land on 22nd
September, 1975, which was duly accepted by the
respondent authorities. The petitioners in terms of the
aforesaid letter dated 12th August, 1975 were liable to deposit the remaining 50% of the premium or selami 2 within a period of two months from date of receipt of information that the land is ready for delivery of possession. By letter dated 23rd August, 1977, the petitioners were directed to deposit the additional amount. The petitioners, due to certain unavoidable family dispute, were unable to deposit the balance amount. The petitioners prayed for extension of time to deposit the balance amount but that was not considered. By notification dated 8th July, 1988 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Metropolitan Development Department, the time for depositing the 50% of the premium or selami was extended for a period of 10 years from the date of allotment and by another notification dated 2nd September, 1991, the time period for depositing the 50% of the premium or selami was further extended for a period of 13 years from the date of allotment and further vide notification dated 31st December, 2001 extended till 25th year of allotment. In the year 1996 and subsequent thereto in the year 2003, 2004, the petitioners after resolution of their problem made a joint representation to the concerned authorities requesting them to accept the deposit of the balance amount of premium or selami as per the Government rules. By letter dated 26th October/2nd November, 2004, the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Urban Development Department, Salt Lake Branch informed the petitioners that the Government regrets its inability to accede to the petitioners' request for revalidation of the 3 allotment of the aforesaid plot as the same has already been cancelled due to non-payment of balance amount of premium or selami within the stipulated period. Being aggrieved by such action on the part of the State authorities, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition.
The State-respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed their affidavit-in-opposition contending that after lapse of 16 years, the petitioners made representations where the allotment was cancelled way back on 4th June, 1980. The order of cancellation was duly served upon the petitioners. The petitioners, prior to cancellation of allotment, were given opportunity of depositing the 50% of the premium or selami. However, no steps were taken by the petitioners for depositing the said amount. For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition is short of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that due to certain family disputes, the petitioners could not deposit the balance 50% of the premium or selami within the stipulated period. By notification dated 8th July, 1988, the period for depositing the balance 50% of the premium or selami was extended for 10 years from the date of allotment and thereafter, the period for depositing the balance 50% of the premium or selami was further extended for a period of 13 years from the date of allotment vide notification dated 2nd September, 1991 and 4 lastly, by notification dated 31st December, 2001, the period has been further extended till 25th year of allotment. The petitioners, at the first instance, made representation on 24th June, 1996. The representation of the petitioners should have been considered by the State authorities pursuant to the notifications for extension of period for depositing the balance payment of 50% of the premium or selami. However, that was not considered. The order of cancellation of allotment was never served upon the petitioners and as such, the order of cancellation being not communicated to the petitioners cannot be regarded as anything more than provisional in character. To have the decisions binding on the petitioners, the order of cancellation should be communicated. In the present case at hand, copy of such order of cancellation was also not delivered to the petitioners. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Bachhittar Singh versus State of Punjab and Another, reported in AIR 1963 SC 395 and the decision of this Court passed in Narendra Dev Narayan versus Calcutta Municipal Corporation and others, reported in 2002 SCC OnLine Cal 312. He further submits that the notifications for extension of period have been issued one after other, extending the benefit to the left over persons, who could not deposit the balance amount within the stipulated period and their allotments have automatically stood cancelled by efflux of time period for 5 depositing the said amount. Being a beneficial order, its benefits should be extended to the petitioners like any other allottees whose allotments stood cancelled. The case made out by the State-respondents that since the allotment of petitioners was cancelled way back in the year 1980, hence he cannot claim benefit of the notification extending the time period is not acceptable inasmuch as the scheme provides for automatic cancellation and notification provides benefits to allottees who faced such automatic cancellation. The petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefit only because order of cancellation has been issued. He seeks for appropriate order for revalidation of the allotment of the plot of land of the petitioners.
On the contrary, Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate for the State-respondents submits that as per the letter of offer of allotment dated 12th August, 1975, the petitioners were supposed to deposit the remaining 50% of the premium or selami within a period of two months from the date of receipt of information that the land is ready for delivery of possession. By letter dated 23rd August, 1977, the petitioners were directed to deposit the additional amount within 60 days. However, no such payment was made. Thereafter, letter was issued on 4th June, 1980 as final notice to the petitioners asking them to deposit the balance amount of premium or selami within 30th June, 1980 failing which the allotment shall stand cancelled from such date. Since the said amount 6 was not deposited within such period, the allotment of the petitioner stood cancelled. The records clearly reveal that the petitioners were granted ample scope and opportunity to deposit the balance amount of premium or selami and therefore, the question of revalidation of the allotment cannot and should not arise. Further, he indicates that the acknowledgement receipt produced by the State- authorities in compliance to the order of this Court clearly shows that the order of cancellation of allotment was served upon the petitioners, which has not been disputed by the petitioners. The petitioners have suppressed material fact of delivery of order of cancellation of allotment, which amounts to false representation and fraud and, therefore, they are not entitled to claim equity. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Dr. Vijay Kumar Kathuria and Another versus Dr. G. C. Mehrotra and Others, reported in (1983) 3 SCC 333 and in S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRS. versus Jagannath (Dead) By LRS. and Others, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1. In the aforesaid backdrop, he submits for dismissal of the writ petition.
Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, the only issue, which needs to be considered in the present writ petitioner is whether the petitioners can be extended the benefit of extension of period granted by the State authorities for payment of balance 50% of the premium or selami vide notifications 7 dated 8th July, 1988, 2nd September, 1991 and lastly on 31st December, 2001.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners were offered for allotment vide letter 2595-SL(AL) dated 12th August, 1975 in respect of plot of land in the Salt Lake City Extension Scheme in Sector- I of the Salt Lake Township at an average rate of Rs. 7,000/- per cottah. The petitioners deposited 50% of the premium or selami as earnest money. Despite notice issued to the petitioners on 23rd August, 1977 for payment of additional amount, the said amount was not paid or deposited. On 4th June, 1980, the State authorities issued letter as final notice asking the petitioners to deposit the balance 50% of the premium or selami within 30th June, 1980. By dint of such notice, the allotment stood cancelled after 30th June, 1980, since the petitioners failed to deposit the said amount within the stipulated time.
Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners contends that the cancellation of allotment or the final notice was never served upon the petitioners and relying on the decisions of Bachhittar Singh (supra) and Narendra Dev Narayan (supra), he urges that the order of cancellation is not binding upon the petitioners. It has been categorically stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the order of cancellation was served upon the petitioners. In compliance with the order of this Court, the State authorities was also produced the copy of the acknowledgement. Copy of the acknowledgement shows 8 that the same has been delivered. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners as aforesaid cannot be acceded to.
Be that as it may, the question, which crops up at this stage as to whether upon such cancellation, the petitioners can have the benefit of extension of the time period. The time period was extended firstly vide notification dated 8th July, 1988 for a period of 10 years and further, it was extended for a period of 13 years vide notification dated 2nd September, 1991 and lastly vide notification dated 31st December, 2001, it was extended till 25th year of allotment in respect of allottees whose allotment stood cancelled automatically. There was no requirement under the offer letter of allotment to cancel allotments expressly. Therefore, even if cancellation of allotment was made by issuing a final notice that would not affect the right of the petitioners arising out of the notification for extending the time period for depositing the 50% of premium or salami for the allotments which stood cancelled automatically. As per the last notification dated 31st December, 2001, the time period in respect of the petitioners stood extended till the year 2000. The petitioners firstly made representation on 24th June, 1996 and thereafter made on 16th September, 1996, 22nd September, 2003 and lastly on 16th August, 2004. In reply to the letter dated 16th August, 2004, the petitioners were informed that revalidation of allotment cannot be made since the same has already been cancelled due to 9 non-payment of the balance premium or selami amount. It is relevant to note that within the year of 2000, which was the extended period for the petitioners, the representations of the petitioners dated 24th June, 1996 and 16th September, 1996 for depositing the balance amount was pending with the authorities which were not dealt with and considered. Therefore, such representations require consideration by the State authorities in terms of the notifications for extension of time period.
Relying on the decisions of Dr. Vijay Kumar Kathuria (supra) and S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRS (supra), it has been urged on behalf of the State- respondents that since the petitioners wilfully did not disclose that the order of cancellation has been served, they are not entitled to equitable relief. As it is found that delivery of order of cancellation does not impair the right of the petitioners to avail extension, such argument does not hold good.
In view of the above, the writ petition stands allowed. The letter no. 2726-SL(AL)/EC-12 dated 26th October, 2004/2nd November, 2004 of Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Urban Development Department, Salt Lake Branch is hereby set aside. The State-respondents are directed to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 24th June, 1996 and 16th September, 1996 in terms of the notifications for extension of time dated 8th July, 1988, 2nd September, 10 1991 and 31st December, 2001 within a period of three months from the date of conclusion of the General Elections, 2024.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition being WPA 19550 of 2004 stands disposed of.
All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)