Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sukanta Abasan & Another vs The State Of West Bengal & Others on 20 March, 2015
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
20.03.2015
S.L- 18(KB)
W.P. 4391 (W) of 2006
with
C.A.N. 601 of 2010
Sukanta Abasan & Another
versus
The State of West Bengal & Others.
Mr. Krishnendu Gooptu,
Mr. Anjan Dutt,
Mr. C. K. Saha
... For the petitioners.
Mr. Amitesh Banerjee,
Ms. Munmun Tewari
... For the State respondents.
The petitioner no.1 herein is a registered society and its members are/were the employees of the Government of West Bengal connected with the execution of the Salt Lake Township Project.
In the instant writ application, it has, inter alia, been averred that on the rudiments of a Government decision towards allotment of land, appropriate applications were made by the members of the petitioner no.1 and pursuant thereto the competent authority made a survey of the areas in Sectors-1 and 5 of the Sale Lake Project and a proposal was incorporated in the Master 2 Plan but subsequent thereto a memorandum dated 4th April, 1990 was issued by the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Metropolitan Development Department stating, inter alia, that the employees would be asked to form a cooperative housing society and allotment of plots would be made under the cooperative housing scheme. Such decision of the Government was not accepted by the petitioners which led to initiation of proceedings before this Court and subsequent thereto, the petitioner accepted the Government's proposal to avail allotment under the cooperative housing scheme and made fresh representations thereto. As the said representations were not considered, the petitioners preferred an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P. 22339 (W) of 1999 and the same was disposed of with a direction towards consideration of the petitioners claim by an order dated 21st December, 1999. In compliance of such directive of this Court, the respondent no.3 communicated a decision dated 28th March, 2000 to the effect that the matter of allotment of plot to the petitioners has to be disposed of in accordance with the revised procedure. Thereafter, the petitioners again made repeated prayers for consideration 3 of their claim and ultimately the Government responded thereto through issuance of appropriate orders, which have been annexed to this writ application. In spite of issuance of the said orders, actual allotment of plots was not made in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court through the instant writ application.
During pendency of the instant writ application, further developments occasioned and the petitioners have brought the same on record through an application being CAN 601 of 2010 and a supplementary affidavit.
Mr. Gooptu, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the entitlement of the members of the petitioner no.1 to avail residential accommodation has not been disputed by the respondents as would be explicit from the memoranda dated 27th June, 2001, 24th December, 2001, 15th January, 2002 and 9th September, 2003.
Drawing the attention of this Court to the memorandum dated 24th December, 2001, Mr. Gooptu submits that the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Urban Development Department requested the respondent no.5 to find out as to whether one or two 4 more plots in Salt Lake may be located for the purpose of allotment of the same to the Cooperative Housing Societies of the employees involved in the process of development of Salt Lake (Bidhan Nagar).
Placing reliance upon the reply issued by the said respondent no.5 vide memorandum dated 15th January, 2002 Mr. Gooptu submits that the said memorandum indicated the plots which are still available at Salt Lake for the purpose of allotment and thereafter, by a memorandum dated 9th September, 2003, the respondent no.3 requested the respondent no.5 to furnish the information about the employees who were involved in the process of development of Salt Lake and have applied for allotment of land to form cooperative societies for residential purposes and thereafter the said respondent no.5 also issued a letter dated 27th June, 2001 indicating the tentative areas which may be considered for allotment to the petitioners.
Mr. Gooptu further submits that the detailed particulars as sought for by the competent authority were duly forwarded by the petitioner no.1 as would be explicit from annexure P-14 of the writ application. 5
Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the memoranda dated 21st December, 2011, 12th October, 2012 and a report at page 10 of the supplementary affidavit through which the authorities admit that still there are vacant plots for allotment towards construction of ownership flats for the members of the petitioner no.1.
Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, learned senior Government advocate assisted by Ms. Munmun Tewari, learned advocate, submits that there is no dispute as regards the contention of Mr. Gooptu to the effect that the Government is still in seisin of the petitioners' claim as would be explicit from the documents which have been referred to in the writ application and the supplementary affidavit and that there had been a consistent endeavour on the part of the Government to consider and finalize the petitioners' claim.
I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have considered the materials on record.
The undisputed facts involved in the instant writ application are that way back in 1980 a decision was adopted by the Government towards allotment of plot to the employees of Salt Lake project for residential purposes 6 and such decision was subsequently revised from allotment of plot on individual basis to the allotment of plot for the purpose of residential accommodation through cooperative housing scheme so that more persons can be accommodated under the scheme. Such decision of the Government was subsequently accepted by the members of the petitioners' society and prayers were made to the effect that the petitioners are willing to come under the cooperative housing scheme. Appreciating such claim of the petitioners, the Government decided to consider the same as would be explicit from the memoranda dated 27th June, 2001, 24th December, 2001, 15th January, 2002 and 9th September, 2003.
A perusal of the memoranda clearly reveals that endeavour was made on behalf of the respondents to identify the vacant plots which can be allotted to the cooperative housing societies of the employees involved in the process of development of Salt Lake (Bidhan Nagar) and the memorandum dated 27th June, 2001 clearly details the location of the vacant plots and the quantum of land available which may be considered for allotment to the Sukanta Abasan. Furthermore, even in the month of December, 2011 a feasibility report on the proposal for 7 construction of ownership flats for officers and employees of Urban Development Department in the unallotted vacant plots at Salt Lake, Kolkata was prepared by the respondents.
The conspectus of facts thus reveal that there are existing vacant plots which can be allotted for the purpose of construction of ownership flats by the members of the petitioner no.1 and that correspondence amongst the respondents inter se does not reveal any antagonistic contradiction with the petitioners' claim and in the backdrop of such factual scenario, I am of the opinion that the matter needs to be relegated to the competent authority for finalization of the petitioners' claim.
Accordingly, I direct the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of West Bengal to consider the petitioners' claim as detailed through the writ application and the supplementary affidavit upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the representatives of the petitioner no.1 and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order and to communicate the same to the petitioners.
8
The entire exercise should be completed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Urban Development Department within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order along with copies of the writ application and the supplementary affidavit.
Needless to observe, in the event, the petitioners' claim deserves acceptance, necessary follow up steps shall be taken by the respondents forthwith.
With the above observations and directions, the writ application being W.P. No. 4391 (W) of 2006 and the connected application being C.A.N. 601 of 2010 are disposed of.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty,J.)