Calcutta High Court
M/S.Ganapati Technology Services Pvt. ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 February, 2020
Author: Ravi Krishan Kapur
Bench: Ravi Krishan Kapur
ORDER SHEET
WP NO.1552 OF 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
M/S.GANAPATI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Date : 19th February, 2020.
Mr.Debabrata Banerjee,
Mr.Samir Chakraborty, Advs., for
HIDCO.
Mr.Ramesh Dhara, Adv., for the
petitioner.
Mr.T.M. Siddiqui,
Mr.Nilotpal Chatterjee, Advs., for the
State.
The Court : The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent
authorities have not demarcated the petitioners' land which had been acquired by the State authorities on behalf of HIDCO. Counsel on behalf of the petitioners has also filed a supplementary affidavit relying on a bill issued by the appropriate authorities demanding taxes from the petitioners. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have already paid taxes claimed by the said authorities. The petitioners also rely on a letter issued by the HIDCO requesting the petitioners to approach the District Magistrate, North 24 Paraganas, Barasat, 2 for demarcation of the petitioners' land. The petitioners also allege that they have made a representation before the said District Magistrate but the District Magistrate has not taken any steps in the matter.
Counsel on behalf of the State submits that approximately 2.46 acres out of 2.76 acres was acquired in L.A. Case No.4/6 of 1961-62 for the purpose of construction of the Calcutta-Dum Dum Super Highway and thereafter, a proposal was sent by the Housing Department, Government of West Bengal for acquisition of an area of 0.115 acre of the same R.S. Plot No.9 in the South East portion for the purposes of the New Township Project, Rajarhat. Accordingly, the said LA proceeding had been initiated under the LA Act I of 1894. Thereafter, a notification and declaration were also published in accordance with law. Subsequently, possession of 0.115 acres of land in R.S. Plot No.9 was taken and has been delivered to the HIDCO. Furthermore, an award has also been prepared and payment has been made to the verified awardees.
Counsel on behalf of the HIDCO has filed an affidavit-in-opposition highlighting that a civil suit had been filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners being Title Suit No.125 of 2008 before the learned First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Barasat for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the subject property. It is further submitted on behalf of HIDCO that the said suit had been subsequently withdrawn by the plaintiff who was the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners.
After having perused the pleadings and the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that even though the petitioners have alleged that a suit 3 has been filed by the predecessor-in-interest, the same stood withdrawn as far as back in 2009. The petitioners have thereafter stepped into the shoes of the predecessor-in-interest and are deemed to be bound by the action of the predecessor-in-interest. There is no enforceable legal right which the petitioners can claim to have which warrants any order in this petition. Hence, there is no scope of passing any order in favour of the petitioners.
In any event, the questions raised by the petitioners in respect of the remaining land, cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceeding of this nature. The petitioner cannot demonstrate an iota of a legal right against the respondents. The petitioner company is a post vesting transferee and cannot have a better right than his predecessor-in-interest. There is no element of public interest involved in this petition nor is there any violation of any constitutional right which the petitioner has been able to demonstrate.
Accordingly, the writ petition being WP No.1552 of 2010 stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.) S.Das