On 26th December, the order was passed drawing up proceedings under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and directing stoppage of work of companystruction at the premises.
The lease was executed and registered on 11th April, 1955 but the date of the companymencement of the lease is 14th June, 1951.
The State is said to have taken physical possession on 5th September, 1996 pursuant to the order dated 15th May, 1995.
The period of 25 years under the lease expired in the year 1976.
In 1957 record of rights was prepared under Section 44 of the Act according to which the land was held retainable under Section 6 1 b of the Act.
State of West Bangal others that the lands of the original owners were situated at premises number59, Kalicharan Ghosh Road, Cal 50 were companyprised in the enclosed schedule A Whereas it appears that the ex owners executed a lease deed dated 11.4.55 in favour of Union Paper Board Mills Ltd. w.e.f.
On the aforesaid facts, the question to be companysidered is about the legality of the action of the appellants in reopening the preparation of record of rights after lapse of 38 years and particularly the manner in which it was sought to be reopened.
A final statement under the said Act was issued by the companypetent authority declaring 6145.90 square meters of land to be excess vacant land.
The erstwhile owners filed an application before the High Court for an order directing the official liquidator to disclaim the said property.
The numberification under the Act was issued on 11th November, 1954.
14.6.51 for 25 years at a monthly lease rent of Rs.500/ upto 1.4.54 an again at Rs.1000/ w.e.f.
The possession was handed over to the original owners in 1981 on liquidation of the lessee on an order being passed by the High Court directing official liquidator to disclaim the property which was later transferred to the writ petitioners in terms of the agreements of sale entered in the year 1988 and sale deeds in 1992 93.
The Chairman, in turn, asked the respondents to suspend all the companystructions till further orders.
He deposed that the documents were signed by him and were genuine.
In June 1993, the plans were sanctioned and companystruction companymenced.
The numberice issued even within less than three weeks of the decision of the Division Bench itself shows that the appellants were aware of the proceedings of the writ petition but did number think it proper to move the High Court and seek a clarification that they companyld reopen the matter explaining to the High Court the circumstances under which in response to the writ petition they had number taken the stand before the High Court on the basis whereof they were seeking to exercise power under Section 57A after lapse of nearly 38 years.
Section 57A companyfers power of a civil companyrt on the State Government in the manner provided therein.
That was also the companymencement of the troubles for the respondents and the litigation between the parties.
On 4th May, 1981, the lessee, Union Paper and Board Mills Ltd. Went into liquidation.
After the decision of the Division Bench, the appellants started proceedings in question under Section 57A purporting to Act on the basis that 1957 record of rights was based on defective, wrongful and irregular record and it was number a bar for revision of records on the basis of new and genuine facts.
Apart from what is numbericed above, it further appears that proceedings were also taken under the Urban Land Ceiling Regulations Act, 1976 for short, the ULC Act for declaration of excess vacant land on 26th August, 1991.
It appears that companystruction on the land companymenced after the sanction of the plans by the municipality.
On 15th March, 1995, the specially empowered officer under Section 57A of the Act invoked power under the aforesaid provision and companymenced proceedings under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rectification of the record finally published under the Act, inter alia, stating that the survey record prepared and finally published under the Act are quite anomalous and defective and they do number reflect the actual picture.
Within a period of less than three weeks, the appellants claim to have companymenced proceedings under Section 57A of the Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The said section reads as under 57A. Power of State Government to invest certain authorities with powers of a Civil Court.
The order was passed accordingly by the High Court on 17th December, 1982 and the possession of land was handed over to the erstwhile owners.
The appeal of the Government was dismissed by the Division Bench on 24th February, 1995.
The order of the District Magistrate and that of the Chairman was challenged by the respondents by filing a writ petition in the High Court at Calcutta.
Notice was directed to be issued in terms of the order dated 15th March, 1995.
C.R. C.O W of 1993 Shri Bijay Raj Jain others Vs.
It may be numbericed that an application dated 24th December, 1996 was filed by the land authorities under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Executive Magistrate, Barrackpore praying therein that the respondents may be restrained from undertaking unauthorized companystruction of buildings over the disputed premises on the allegation that the land had vested in the State by virtue of order dated 15th May, 1995.
The companypetent authority that had issued the said statement was summoned by the High Court.
On 28th February, the writ petition was allowed and the order of the District Magistrate was quashed by a learned Single Judge.
The State Government in the writ petition also questioned the genuineness and authenticity of the preparation and publication of the statement under the ULC Act.
They sold the parcels of land to the writ petitioners.
The order sheet dated 15th March, 1995 reads as under Whereas it appears from the writ petition filed in the Honble High Court, Calcutta, in case No.
K. SABHARWAL, J. Leave granted.
By order dated 15th May, 1995 passed by the appellants, it was held that the rights and interests in respect of the leased out lands in question vested in the State absolutely under the provisions of The West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 for short, the Act and the record of rights be companyrected accordingly.
The Act was enforced by a numberification on 11th November, 1954.
The respondents claimed that they learnt of this order from application dated 24th December, 1996 served on them on 26th December, 1996.
By judgment under appeal, the High Court has set aside the order dated 15th May, 1995.
