Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Ml 231) Madhusudan Ghosh & Ors vs (S. Banerjee) The State Of West Bengal & ... on 12 December, 2014
Author: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
Bench: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
1
Court No. 32 W. P. No. 4987(W) of 2006
12.12.2014
(ML 231) Madhusudan Ghosh & Ors.
Vs.
(S. Banerjee) The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Tarun Kumar Roy, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Krishnendu Banerjee, Advocate
Ms. Prithu Ghosh, Advocate
Mr. Arnab Roy, Advocate
.... For the petitioners
Mr. Dilip Kumar Samanta, Advocate
Mr. Biswapriya Samanta, Advocate
.... For the respondent nos. 5 to 8
Mr. Rammohan Pal, Advocate .... For the State This is an unfortunate fight between two groups of persons who had once shared the same misfortune of being uprooted from their original habitats, barring possibly two exceptions. The first group of persons who had migrated from the former East Pakistan had squatted at various places in West Bengal. Once such batch had settled themselves in some government lands in Naihati in the district of North 24 Parganas. Subsequently, when others in different batches came and squatted in the same colony the first batch of squatters had somewhat settled down and had been in occupation of some areas of government lands.
The petitioners in the present writ petition were the early squatters in the Naihati Bijoynagar colony and the private respondents, according to the petitioners, were tenants under them for running certain shops which the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners had started on such government plots.
Pursuant to a scheme introduced by the Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department, Government of West Bengal, the petitioners like many others made applications for freehold title deed and since there was 2 no response from the Government they moved a writ petition earlier. That petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court inter alia directing Commissioner of the relevant department to dispose of the matter by a reasoned order after considering the claims and counter claims of the respective parties.
The result of such direction is the order dated November 23, 2005 passed by the Secretary, Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department, i.e., the respondent no. 2 herein.
By the said order the petitioners had been issued a freehold title in respect of their respective plots of land in their occupation being EP Nos. 319 and 324/3 of the said colony. Two private respondents who had also applied for lease deed in respect of the shop rooms were allowed to have the same in respect of the concerned plots within S.P. No. 526 and two other private respondents were also allowed to apply to the concerned department for lease deeds of the respective plots within the said plot no. 526. Last but not the least, another private respondent Smt. Gita Rani Pal was also allowed to apply for a lease deed for the area of a land in her occupation. It was further directed that the remaining area of the land under S.P. No. 526 minus the area of land under occupation of Smt. Gita Rani Pal should be allotted on the basis of the application for joint lease deeds amongst the petitioners inter se and subject to the provision of the passage to the colony road for entrance to and exit from the said plot of land.
This order had been the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The writ petitioners had been granted the freehold land in respect of more than 6 Cottahs of land in E.P. No. 319 and 324/3 of the said column.
Mr. Roy, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has taken two serious exceptions to the order. First, the order is not a reasoned one and, 3 therefore, the respondent no. 2 while passing the order had violated the direction of the court. Secondly, the shop rooms in respect of which lease deeds were granted in favour of the private respondents were improperly done for various reasons. Mr. Roy sums up his objections to the grant of this lease in respect of those shops to the private respondents primarily on the ground that they were not the residents of the said colony, two of them were not refugees from East Pakistan and all of them were once tenants under the petitioners. The shops which were being run by the predecessor-in-interest of the present set of petitioners were let out to the private respondents and, therefore, according to the petitioner, they had no right to be granted any leasehold land.
It is true that the order impugned in this writ petition is not really a very reasoned one in the same we understand it to be. Apart from the fact this Court, specifically directed the concerned authority to dispose of the applications by a reasoned order it is imperative on the part of an authority to dispose of any application with reasons so that the process of ratiocination, if under challenge, can always be examined by the higher forum. But reasons for the kind of order made by the respondent no. 2 is not very far to seek. Undoubtedly it has not been sufficiently articulated. But from a bare perusal of the order it appears that the authority decided to grant free hold tenure to the petitioners and the lease deeds in respect of the shop rooms to the private respondents on 'as is where is basis'. This is brought out from the order by the use of the words "under their respective occupations." Therefore, it appears that the authority did not probably want to disturb the occupation of the respective occupiers from their respective possessions.
Even if the allotment in favour of the private respondents had not been very regular or strictly in 4 accordance with the scheme of 2004 the petitioners should not be allowed to challenge the same as we cannot forget that after all these were government lands and the government had distributed them on a very humane considerations.
Mr. Roy brought it to my notice that Daman Rajak and Gita Rani Pal were not refugees from East Pakistan. This has been very seriously disputed by the private respondents. A writ court should not go into this disputed question of fact. So far as Daman Rajak is concerned it cannot be glossed over that the forefathers of the petitioners themselves had let out the shop room to him.
Therefore, I find from the order impugned that the respondent no. 2 was moved more by humane consideration and even if the direction is reversed the petitioners themselves may not get those plots of land after obtaining a freehold title deed of more than 6 Cottahs and 6 Chittacks.
Even assuming that the objections raised by Mr. Roy had been technically right the principles of equity and the ends of justice do not call for an interference with the order impugned. That will have the effect of uprooting the private respondents from their respective possessions which they got after continuous and long suffering. That apart, there is no guarantee that the petitioners will get those lands as of right. Granting reliefs to the petitioners on not-so-clearly established rights may have a disastrous effect on the private respondents. To stick to the letters of law is bound to defeat more loftier elements of justice.
I thus dispose of this writ petition without any order.
My attention has been drawn to the fact that because of the status quo order passed in the writ petition the consequential steps for executing the lease deeds could not be taken by the respondents. I direct 5 the respondents to do the necessary strictly upon compliance of all the legal formalities.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the respective parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.)