Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Due to such pendency for a long period a few allottees have moved Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata and HIDCO finding it difficult to explain such delay for nearly 1 ½ years on account of review and decision during preparation of Affidavits.
The matter was referred to M/s. Fox & Mondal, Retainer Advocates and Solicitors of HIDCO, who opined that the issue should no longer be kept pending for review and that all allotments whether residential or non-residential, whether Chairman's Quota or by the Board allotted on 28-02-2011 for which initial letters of intimation were issued on 28-02-2011 and thereafter, pending for review be withdrawn/cancelled by the Board in principle immediately ignoring payment position.

30. On February 23, 2015 it was discovered that affidavits in at least six of the matters had not been filed by the company, whereupon the hearing was adjourned to March 10, 2015. On March 10, 2015 hearing commenced and the order passed on the lead matter on such day recorded the State's submission that the State endorsed the stand taken by the company in its affidavits and that the State had no conflict of interest with the company. The State also confirmed that it would not seek to file any independent affidavit as HIDCO had already filed its affidavits-in-opposition and a supplementary affidavit in WP 5158(W) of 2013. On March 18, 2015 it was recorded that by consent of the appearing parties, WP No. 2522(W) of 2014 had been chosen as the lead matter in the clutch of 61 petitions pertaining to the cancellation of allotments of land in Rajarhat. In course of the final hearing, two of the petitions challenging the cancellation of allotments, WP No. 3788(W) of 2014 and WP 18529(W) of 2013, were dismissed as not pressed.

"2) The land shall be used by the WB HIDCO for the purpose of development of New Town, Kolkata which means and includes amongst other things allotment of plots to the Individuals / Co-

Operatives / West Bengal Housing Board / Joint Venture Companies / Others Entrepreneurs etc. for residential / business / commercial / other purposes, as well as overall infrastructural development relating thereto. In doing so the WB HIDCO shall have the right to sell, lease, rent and dispose of those lands freely and without any restriction subject to the condition that the said disposal will be in accordance with and in pursuance of the stated development objectives of the New Town, Kolkata as laid out in the approved Master Land Use Plan (MLUP) / Land Use Development Control Plan (LUDCP) & other plans prepared under the relevant statutes."

108. The next lot of petitioners in WP 30170(W) of 2013 sought a plot of "around one acre", apparently for constructing a corporate office and residential complex for the senior personnel of the petitioner company. The petitioner company claims to have applied on December 27, 2007 and indicated the diverse range of its business from metal containers to mosquito repellants and its impressive turnover of Rs.686 crores in the year ended March 31, 2007. The application met with the approval of the chairman on February 1, 2011 and the same was intimated to the petitioner company on February 21, 2011. The 20-cottah plot was identified in the offer of allotment of May 7, 2011 on freehold basis under the chairman's discretionary quota at Rs.13.364 lakh per cottah. The allotment was cancelled by a letter of August 6, 2013 on similar grounds as indicated in the letter of cancellation issued to the lead petitioners extracted above. The only other point of note in this matter is that HIDCO has disclosed a letter dated February 25, 2008 in its opposition where the turnover of the petitioner company for the year ended March 31, 2010 has been disclosed. However, the petitioners say that the date on such application is written in hand, though they do not appear to be embarrassed by the managing director of the petitioner company addressing an undated letter to the chairman of HIDCO. Such petitioners also question the unsubstantiated allegation of fraud levelled against them in the company's affidavit.