Out of the said amount Rs.19,00,000/ was paid to the vendors respondent Nos.
The building was companystructed in terms of the plan sanctioned by Calcutta Municipal Corporation and possession was given to the Bank in 1992.
When the companystructions were going on, the appellant Bank sent a draft companyy of the sale deed to respondent No.
Appellant Bank entered into an agreement with respondent Nos.
According to the appellant, after the said order the State Government was moved in terms of the directions given by the Appellate Authority on 2nd September, 1996, 13th March, 1997, 20th April, 2001 and 18th May, 2002.
All the flats were allotted and are in occupation of the allottees.
There was numberresponse to the request made by the appellant Bank.
The prayer for permission to sell was rejected by the Competent Authority under the Urban Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 in short the Act .
However, liberty was granted to the appellant to move the State Government for seeking exemption.
It was categorically held by the order dated 20.3.1996 that the Competent Authority was right in treating the land in question to be taken into account while determining the total excess vacant land.
The possession of the property was handed over to the appellant Bank with the right to demolish the existing structures and to companystruct building thereon.
By this agreement respondent No.5 was appointed as companytractor developer to companystruct a multi storied building of 29 residential flats at the property in question.
4 for finalisation and for execution and registration of the sale deed.
The companysideration was fixed at Rs.20 lacs.
An appeal was filed which was dismissed by holding that the property in question vested with the Government and was in fact the excess land of the owners.
2012 of 2004 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The said flats were companystructed by spending more than rupees one crore six lacs.
Another agreement was entered into on 12.11.1990.
Arising out of SLP C No.
4 and 5 in the year 1990 for purchase of land and building situated at No.1 Fakirpara Road, Calcutta.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court summarily dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that it was highly belated.
A brief reference to the background facts as projected by appellant would be necessary.
