Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"At present I am the owner of Plot No. 158, Block-BF in Salt Lake, Sector I of 48 cottahs of land which was given to me for the purpose of building a school. But after going through the norms of ICSE to get an affiliation, we now need a plot of more than 60 kathas (1 Acre). So I would like to surrender this allotted land to you and at the same time apply for a plot of a bigger area so that I can take the school project forward."

7. By impugned allotment letter dated 17th February, 2009, (Annexure R-9) (para 2) the Government allotted "plot no. CA 222 measuring about 62 cottah in Sector 1 of Salt Lake in lieu of earlier leased out plot of land being BF-158 in Sector I, Salt Lake measuring 48.295 cottah for a period of 999 years on payment of provisional salami of Rs. 13,70,500/- towards additional quantum of 13.705 cottah of land Rs. 1,00,000/- per cottah only in order to enable him to construct the school building in conformity with the specified norms of School Board Authority. This will be subject to execution and registration of a Deed of Surrender and return of original possession certificate and site plan in respect of earlier allotted plot No. BF-158 in Sector I, Salt Lake."

v) There are no provisions for exchange of plots of land in Salt lake and there is no instance of exchange of plots of land in Salt Lake.
vi) Plot No. CA-222 is located at a more convenient place as it is easily accessible as against the plot No. BF-158 which is located in the interior portion and is not easily accessible.
vii) The Government is estopped from allotting plot CA-222 to respondent No. 9 for construction of a school building as such land was earmarked for construction of a college in the plan of Salt Lake City which was executed in the concerned Department at the time of allotment of plots in the Salt Lake City. The residents of CA block have altered their position to their detriment pursuant to the terms depicted in such plan. Therefore, they are entitled to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel.

15. Learned counsel for the parties as well as party in person have relied on several decisions of the Apex Court in support of their rival submissions.

16. As indicated above, the gravamen of the charge levelled by the petitioners for the purpose of assailing the allotment dated 17th February, 2009 in favour of the respondent No. 9 is that Plot No. CA-222 was allotted without issuing any advertisement. It is vehemently contended that the State Government had issued Memorandum dated 7th December, 1999 resolving that the open advertisement had to be published in National daily newspapers before allotting a plot of land in Salt Lake City, Calcutta (Annexure P-1). The advertisement dated 5th November, 2006 for Plot No. BF-158 was confined to that particular plot. There was no advertisement for Plot No. CA-222 in Salt Lake City (Bidhannagar), Calcutta.

222.

36. Two questions, therefore, arise for consideration :-

i) As on 1st April, 2009, had respondent No. 9 had already surrendered the land being plot no. BF-158 measuring 48 cottahs back to the State Government so that the State Government would charge only differential amount for the additional land (i.e., for the area of plot no. CA-222 less the area of plot no. BF-158) ?
ii) As on 1st April, 2009, what was the rate of premium for granting long term lease of plot in Salt Lake City for institutional purpose ?