Plaintiffs Respondent Nos.
Suffice it to say, that eventually the suit property along with its adjacent land bearing Nos.73, 60, 72, etc.
1 to 7/Plaintiffs was maintainable and number barred by law.
The AppellantsState of West Bengal, the Competent Authority, and Respondent Nos.
The Division Bench vide order 03.04.1997 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Single Judge, and dismissed the Writ Petition.
On 04.01.1990, M s OBL accordingly surrendered their possession on the land bearing Nos.
1 to 7/Plaintiffs in the suit property are companymon law rights and do number emanate from the Act and therefore, must be adjudicated only by a civil companyrt.
8 Defendant No.
8 and 9 herein filed their respective Written Statements.
1 then was given possession of the land from the State.
The Civil Suit was filed for declaration and possession of the suit property.
The Single Judge vide Order dated 26.08.1992 allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the numberification dated 11.05.1990.
1 to 7 herein and dismissed the Suit which gave rise to filing of First Appeal No.202/2008 before the Calcutta High Court by the Plaintiffs Respondent Nos.
Is the suit barred by limitation?
The said surrender included the suit property also.
1 woke up from her slumber, and claimed to be the owner and holder of the suit property and part of the adjacent land.
36/2014 with CAN No.1450/2014 in F.A. No.202/2008 passed by the High Court at Calcutta.
1 to 7 and decreeing the suit.
The Respondent No.
Thereafter, M s Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals set up a hospital at a huge companyt, and is running their hospital since the last two decades.
Is the suit bad for numberjoinder of necessary parties?
Is the Plaintiff entitled to a decree for declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to a possession of the suit property as a companywner?
98, 41,300 was paid to the State.
A declaration the statement filed by the defendant No.2 under subSection 1 of Section 6 of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 is null and void so far as it relates to premises No.73, Canal Circular Road, Calcutta being the suit premises A declaration that the draft statement prepared by the defendant No.3 under Section 8 of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, on the basis of the statement filed by the defendant No.2 is null and void and number binding upon the plaintiffs so far as it relates to the suit property A declaration that letter No.1500UL AV 11/19 dated April 4, 1991 and or the purported allotment of the suit premises to the defendant No.1 by the defendant No.3 is inoperative, companylusive, fraudulent and void A declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the premises No.73, Canal Circular Road, Calcutta and the plaintiffs is entitled to possession of the suit property as owner A decree for recovery of possession evicting the defendant No.1 from suit property A decree for a sum of Rs.1 crore from the defendant No.1 as mesne profit and or damages for illegal use and occupation of the suit premises Costs of the suit Such other or further relief or reliefs that the plaintiffs may be entitled to in law or equity.
The Respondent No.1 felt aggrieved by the Judgment of the Division Bench and filed S.L.P. C No.12726 of 1997 in this Court.
1 to 7 was also barred by limitation because the Plaintiffs Respondent Nos.
2, whereas Respondent Nos.
M s Hindustan Housing, in turn, transferred the suit property along with adjacent land to M s Orient Beverage Ltd. hereinafter referred to as M s OBL vide registered sale deed dated 30.11.1962.
The Plaintiff felt aggrieved by the numberification issued under Section 10 3 on 11.05.1990 and filed a Writ Petition WP No.1382/1992 to challenge the same before the Calcutta High Court.
The numberification under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 was published on 17.02.1976 and as per scheme of the Act, the owner of the suit property was obligated to file a return, since the suit property was beyond the ceiling limit.
9900/2016 against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2014 in RVW No.117/2014 in F.A. No.202/2008 passed by the High Court at Calcutta.
1 to 7 filed Civil Suit TS No.
The Respondent No.8 Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. felt aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge dated 26.08.1992 and filed Writ Appeal No.324/1993 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
namely Ms. Daisy Mantosh was the owner of premises No.
Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property by evicting the Defendant No.1 therefrom?
The State executed a lease deed dated 02.12.1994 in favour of M s Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals.
The State of West Bengal Appellant No.2 herein on 04.04.1991 allotted the suit property No.73 along with adjacent land measuring around 34,147 sq.
The facts set out hereinbelow are taken from the list of dates filed by the parties.
1 to 7 .
4 and Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals Defendant No.1 being aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court filed the present Special Leave Petitions in this Court, which have been renumbered as Civil Appeal Nos.
By Order dated 28.07.1997, this Court dismissed the said petition.
The suit was filed against the present Appellants, i.e., the Competent Authority under the Act, the State of West Bengal, and Respondent Nos.
It was also the subject matter of civil and criminal proceedings between the parties, who claimed to have possessed the suit property.
On 17.02.1976, the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Act came into force.
To what other relief, if any, is the Plaintiff entitled to?
2 in the Civil Suit out of which these appeals arise.
8 Defendant No.
It may be mentioned here that after 1933 till 30.11.1962, the suit property went through several transfers between various parties.
8 and 9 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sealdah.
The Land and Reforms Department on 04.04.1991 decided to allot the suit property to M s Janapriya Hospital Corporation Ltd., later renamed as Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals for setting up a hospital.
9 is Defendant No.
The suit instituted by Respondent Nos.
On the other hand, M s Orient Properties Pvt.
Ltd. renamed as M s Orient Beverages Ltd. OBL submitted a return under Section 6 of the Act, and also made an application under Section 21 for retaining the excess land, which was refused on 27.09.1986.
Mr. Poonam Chand Sethia, in turn, on 17.08.1933 claimed to have transferred the suit property to one Moti Chand Nakhat, Amrito Lal Shah, Thakur Lal Mehta and Champa Lal Daphtary, being the trustees of a Trust who, in turn, claimed to have transferred it to one Mr. P.S. Mantosh the predecessorininterest of the original Plaintiff, who is number represented by his legal representatives Respondent Nos.
This was done by executing a lease for 30 years, for which a premium of Rs.
1 to 7 were number in possession of the suit property since 1962.
1M s Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals on a long term lease of 30 years.
Since registration of the sale deed amounts to a public numberice, the Respondents should have filed a Civil Suit against the vendors of M s OBL, and M s OBL, for a declaration of their ownership and cancellation of their sale deed in relation to the suit property.
We, however, do number companysider it necessary to set out these details here.
The reliefs claimed in the suit read as under A declaration that the Notification No.53XU.L. Cal dated February 12, 1990 is null and void.
This was followed by issuance of the final numberification under Section 10 3 on 11.05.1990 which resulted in vesting of the suit property in the State of West Bengal free from all encumbrances.
Hence, the dispute companyld number have been decided by a tribunal by ousting the jurisdiction of the civil companyrt.
It was sought to be companytended that the rights, title and interest of the Respondent Nos.
1 to 7 herein are Plaintiff Nos.
Hence, the Civil Suit filed by Respondent Nos.
1 to 7 claimed that their predecessorininterest viz.
which is a part of and adjacent to a bigger chunk of land measuring around 29 bighas hereinafter referred to as suit property .
In the year 1992, Respondent No.1 Plaintiff No.
The Competent Authority, however, did number receive any objection from any person pursuant to the numberice published.
101/1998 out of which the present appeals arise.
One Abdul Jabbar claimed to have purchased the suit property on 29.07.1919 in an auction sale.
71/1, 60,72 and 73 Canal Circular Road and since the extent of land held was in excess of the ceiling limit, yet she did number file any return in respect of the suit properties.
The Plaintiffs claimed a declaration that the entire proceedings which culminated in the issuance of the numberification dated 12.02.1990 under Section 10 1 under the Act in relation to the suit property be declared null and void and the plaintiffs be declared owners of the suit property.
1 to 7.
He, in turn, claimed to have sold it to one Maula Ataul Haq on 29.09.1927 who, in turn, is alleged to have sold it to one Poonam Chand Sethia on 15.08.1933.
As a companysequence, thereof, the numberification dated 11.05.1990 issued by the State was held to be legal and valid and was accordingly restored.
The dispute pertains to land bearing No.73, holding No.42, Canal Circular Road, Calcutta 700 054 measuring around 2 bighas, 2 katas, 4 chataks and 25 sq.
The Competent Authority, on 23.05.1990, served numberice to M s OBL calling upon them to physically surrender the possession of the suit property to the State, which was done on 28.05.1990.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. C.A. Nos.1062910631 of 2014 are filed by the Competent Authority against the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2013 in F.A. No.
came into the hands of Mr. Monilal Goyee and Mr. Bijay Kumar Goyee who, in turn, claimed to have sold it to M s Hindustan Housing on 15.06.1957.
Is the Plaintiff entitled to a decree of Rs.1 crore against the Defendant and mesne profit?
This led to the issuance of a numberification by the State under Section 10 1 of the Act which was duly published in the Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary on 15.02.1990 inviting objections from the general public.
Appellant No.1 herein is the Competent Authority, CalcuttaDefendant No.
C.A. Nos.98299830 of 2016 are filed by M s Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2013 in F.A. No.202/2008 with CAN No.1054/2014 and C.A. No.
1 to 7, Respondent No.
Is the suit maintainable?
In order to appreciate the companytroversy involved in these appeals, it is necessary to set out the facts in detail, which led to filing of these appeals.
202/2008, Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2014 in the Review Petition being RVW No.
meters bearing premises Nos.
58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 72, 73, 79, 81 at Canal Circular Road to Respondent No.
The Competent Authority by order dated 27.09.1988, however, rejected the prayer made by M s OBL.
8 is Defendant No.1 and Respondent No.
58, 60, 72, 73, 79, 81 situated at Canal Circular Road, Calcutta in favour of the State.
