Calcutta High Court
Balaram Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Maniklal Chowdhury & Ors on 9 October, 2018
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
ORDER SHEET
GA No.2329 of 2018
With
CS No.199 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
BALARAM DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Versus
MANIKLAL CHOWDHURY & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
Date: 9th October, 2018.
Appearance:
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Sarbapriya Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Lopita Banerjee Adv.
Mr. Subhajit Das, Adv.
Mr. Alok Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv.
Mr. Debdut Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Nikunj Berlia, Adv.
The Court: When the joint Receivers were in possession of the property
without the leave of this Court the Corporation or any other parties could not
have interfered with the possession of the Receiver. The petitioners complain
that under the garb of such scheme, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has
trespassed the property and is in the process of undertaking certain works to
which the Corporation is not entitled to under the law.
2
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation has filed an affidavit stating that the
Office of the Controller Kolkata Thika Tenancy had informed one Munna Jaiswal
that the concerned premises is prima facie thika tenanted subject to final
determination under Sec.5(3) of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and
Requisition) Act, 2001. The corporation has also disclosed orders by which the
mutation has been allowed in favour of some of the occupants. It is also stated
on behalf of the Corporation that a sum of Rs.1,66,406/- was released from the
MLA fund for immediate execution under the BEUP Scheme for Ward No.21
under Borough IV for development of stone set passage. Pursuant to such
approval the Civil Department of the KMC initiate the process and tendering
formalities of the said work has been completed.
However, the property is in possession of the plaintiff and a suit for eviction
is pending against the private respondents. The corporation under the garb of a
scheme cannot enter into a private land and undertake projects which directly interfere with the right, title and interest of the petitioner in relation to the property in question. Although there appears to be some disputes with regard to the status of the private respondents and the nature of the land, but Corporation is no way concerned with such disputes and ought to have approached this Court before undertaking such work.
However, considering the fact that development of the passage would enure to benefits of all and may improve the living condition of the occupants, the Corporation is permitted to carry out such development work at its own costs under the supervision of the joint Receivers.
3
The Joint Receivers are in possession of the property. It is needless to mention that the said order shall not create any equity in favour of the respondents. After the work under the scheme is carried out to the extent as indicated in the affidavit, the joint Receivers shall install a gate at the main entrance of the said premises and engage a security guard for safety and security of the property in question. The ingress and egress of the occupiers of the said premises however shall not be disturbed. This order shall not influence any pending proceeding between the parties.
It is made clear that no other constructions save and except for which permission is granted by this order shall be carried out in the said premises without the express leave of the Court. Since no affidavit in opposition is called for the allegations made in the petition are deemed to have been denied by the respondents.
The application being GA No.2329 of 2018 is disposed of.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) sp/