Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(3) Bengal Shrachi Housing Development Ltd. being the proforma respondent (in short 'Bengal Shrachi') submitted a proposal to BDA in response to the notice inviting Expression of Interest. By a letter dated 8 November, 2004 BDA communicated its approval of Bengal Shrachi's proposal.

(4) In November, 2004 and January, 2005 there were newspaper publications regarding proposed development of the Satellite Township by BDA with the help of Bengal Shrachi.

(5) By a letter dated 11 May, 2005 BDA requested the Land Acquisition Collector to initiate proceedings for acquiring land for setting up of the proposed township. In May, 2005 notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. This was challenged by an Association of land owners of Burdwan by filing WP No. 16280(W) of 2005 in this Court in August, 2005. The said writ petition was, however, dismissed by a judgment and order dated 23 February, 2007. By a letter dated 14 October, 2005 BDA requested Bengal Shrachi to deposit a sum of Rs. 11,17,99,824 being 50 per cent of the probable cost of acquisition of about 248.32 acres of land in Burdwan.

(6) In November and December, 2005 the said sum was deposited by Bengal Shrachi with the BDA.

(7) In December, 2005 and January, 2006 notification was issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(8) On 8 March, 2006 a memorandum of agreement was entered into between BDA and Bengal Shrachi. Clause 5 of the said agreement provides that the company shall pay the actual cost of acquisition of the land together with all applicable incidentals, as may be determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, Burdwan, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act') to the BDA. Further, the company would also bear additional costs in connection with the acquisition like subsequent payment to the land losers in pursuance of Court orders etc. if any, on actual basis. (9) On 25 July, 2006 Bengal Shrachi deposited Rs. 1,91,75,810/- with BDA for paying the cost of acquisition in four LA Cases .

(10) On 26 February, 2007 BDA handed over possession of 248.32 acres of land covering the area of the Burdwan Satellite Township Project to Bengal Shrachi. (11) By a letter dated 9 October, 2007 BDA requested Bengal Shrachi to consider payments of 10 per cent bonus on total value of land to three land losers. (12) On 5 September, 2008 BDA handed over possession of balance 6.420 acres of land to the writ petitioner company (hereinafter referred to as 'Shrachi'). (13) At this juncture it may be noted that Bengal Shrachi along with a Mauritius based company called Xander Investment Holding VI Limited formed the writ petitioner company, i.e., Shrachi, as a Special Purpose Vehicle for developing the township. Bengal Shrachi and Xander Investment each hold 50 per cent shareholding in Shrachi. On 20 October, 2006 Bengal Shrachi entered into a development rights assignment agreement with Shrachi whereby and whereunder Bengal Shrachi assigned and transferred all its rights, entitlements and interest in the development of the said project to Shrachi. The respondent authorities had full knowledge of the said agreement dated 20 October, 2006. On 10 January, 2007 Bengal Shrachi wrote a letter to the Additional District Magistrate (Dev), Burdwan & Executive Officer, BDA putting on record the execution of the said assignment agreement and also putting on record that a meeting was held on 29 December, 2006 at the Chamber of the Learned Government Pleader of Burdwan which was attended by the Executive Officer of BDA and the Vice Chairman of Burdwan Municipality wherein it was decided that a tripartite agreement would be entered into between Bengal Shrachi, Shrachi and BDA whereby BDA will, inter alia, confirm the assignment agreement and Bengal Shrachi will indemnify BDA for any loss or damage that BDA may suffer for any acts or deeds of Shrachi in execution of the project.

(33) It is true that initially the agreement for development of the project was entered into by and between BDA and Bengal Shrachi. Bengal Shrachi then mooted the proposal of executing the project through a joint venture company in which Bengal Shrachi and Xander Investment would have equal shareholding. BDA agreed with the same and gave its 'no objection'. Accordingly, the writ petitioner company i.e. Shrachi was incorporated and Bengal Shrachi assigned all its interests, rights and entitlements in development of the said project in favour of Shrachi by executing an agreement of assignment dated 20 October, 2006. This agreement was accepted by BDA and BDA accepted Shrachi as the developer of the project. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that the lease deed in respect of the concerned land was executed by BDA in favour of Shrachi. In other words, Shrachi stepped into the shoes of Bengal Shrachi as developer of the project. This position is undisputable since after Shrachi came into the picture BDA raised all demands on Shrachi as would be evident from, inter alia, a letter dated 6 September, 2010 (Annexure P 20 to the writ petition) written by BDA to Shrachi. Shrachi has been making all payments to BDA whether towards the annual lease rent or any other expenditure incurred by BDA in connection with the project. Prior to the assignment agreement being executed between Bengal Shrachi and Shrachi, Bengal Shrachi had paid the first instalment that was due to BDA. After the assignment, it is Shrachi which has been making all necessary payments. As per the understanding and arrangement between the parties, it will be Shrachi which will be bound to pay any enhanced compensation in respect of acquisition of the concerned land. Hence, it would be preposterous to hold that Shrachi is not a 'person interested' within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the LA Act. The order of the Reference Court enhancing the compensation directly affects Shrachi as it is Shrachi who would be out of pocket. (34) In Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in no uncertain terms held that the words 'person interested' in Section 3(b) of the LA Act must receive a liberal construction and a company for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is bound under an agreement to pay the compensation will be a person interested. The principles of equity, justice and good conscience also warrant such an interpretation. Shrachi would definitely be interested in seeing that the amount of compensation is not unduly heavy since ultimately the financial burden will be on Shrachi. Hence, in my opinion, it was imperative on the Reference Court to give an opportunity of hearing to Shrachi before enhancing the compensation. I find strong support for this view of mine in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Neelagangabai's case (supra).