Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The review applicant seeks review of a judgment dated 13th December, 2013 dismissing an intra-Court appeal arising out of an order dated 20th March, 2017 passed by a Learned Single Judge in WP No 1336(W) of 2017. The writ petition was filed challenging an order of cancellation of an allotment of land at Salt Lake.

2. The subject matter of dispute pertains to a plot of land being Plot No. 2025:CHC-AS:1736-DB 357 in Block AE, Salt Lake, measuring 4.4002 cottahs. Originally, the said plot was allotted to one Biva Rani Dassi (Debi) (since deceased) through the Deputy Secretary Government of West Bengal, Irrigation and Waterways Department sometime in or about the year 1971. Subsequently, a lease was executed in her favour on 3rd May 1974 on the condition that a residential building would be constructed on the given plot as per the sanction plan within a time frame provided thereunder. Pursuant to the above, a plan was also sanctioned by the Biddhannagar Municipal Corporation for construction of a three storied building on an application by the lessee. The said Biva Rani Dassi started the construction as per sanctioned plan but failed to complete the same. A show cause notice under clause 2(6)(a) of the lease dated 9th December, 1991 was also served upon her seeking an explanation for her long inaction and why such plot should not be resumed by the State authorities on her failure to build the house. Pursuant to the above, at the request of the said Biva Rani Dassi, an extension for a year was initially granted to complete such construction vide Memo No. 2146 dated 18th June, 1996.

9. It is contended by the respondent authorities that the review application is not maintainable in law since the same has been filed long after the dismissal of the Special Leave to Appeal (in short SLP) challenging the impugned order dated 13th December, 2018 and that such delay of 322 days is completely unexplained and the grounds and facts brought before this Court are frivolous, concocted and without any basis. It is further contended that the Department of Urban Development & Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal had resumed the plot after exercising due process of law by issuing a "Resumption Order" after cancelling the allotment of the said plot of land for violation of different clauses of the Lease deed dated 3 May, 1974. It is further submitted that the impugned order has reached its 2025:CHC-AS:1736-DB finality upon dismissal of the SLP filed by the review applicant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 13th August, 2019 and that no review can be entertained hence that application is liable to be dismissed. The respondents also contend that the plot and properties at Salt Lake city are all leasehold properties and are guided by terms and conditions of the lease agreement executed between the parties and such terms and conditions are the guiding principles of individual plot holders. Upon violation of such conditions, the Urban Development Department being the lessor is at liberty to take action against the lessee. Biva Rani Dassi was allotted the plot with the condition to make the necessary construction on the given plot within a time frame. However, the said predecessor in interest in 27 years of her occupation of the land i.e., between 1974 and 2001. The original lessee failed to complete such construction even between 2001 and 2003 when she passed away despite the respondent authority providing extensions on sympathetic grounds and allowing the permission to gift the plot to the review applicant no. 1. The predecessor in interest sought permission to transfer the said plot to the review applicant no. 1 with the hope that such construction shall be completed by the said review-applicant. Accordingly transfer permission was given however no deed of gift was executed by the predecessor in interest in favour of the review applicant. Thereafter repeated opportunities had been provided to the review applicant from time to time to complete such construction however the review applicant failed to complete the same till the date of resumption. The 2025:CHC-AS:1736-DB predecessors in interest along with the review applicants have been in violation of the terms of the agreement and have received served notices issued by the authorities from time to time for such violation and as such it cannot be said that the respondent authorities acted contrary to law while passing the order of resumption.