1 Strand Road being the premises in question.
On the further factual score, it appears that in and around 20th/21st November, 1987, the entire Mangla Hat was companypletely gutted by a devastating fire and shortly thereafter on 24th November, 1987, an order of Requisition under sub Section 1 of Section 3 of the West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 was issued by the Collector, District Hawrah West Bengal and 25th November, i.e. on the very next day itself, a Writ Petition was moved challenging the order of Requisition being Writ Petition No.
The order itself indicates that the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the objections.
Adverting presently however, to the matter under companysideration, be it numbered on the factual score that a vacant land in Howrah, West Bengal, measuring about 8 Bighas approximately belonging to the Dawans as owners was leased out to Mimanis for a period of 50 years companymencing from 1st January, 1939.
Subsequently, the appeal was re heard by a re constituted Division Bench of the High Court and the judgment was reserved by the Bench.
A companyy of the intimation was also forwarded to Advocates of the owners.
7 10 in the appeal viz.,
The respondent was number entitled to assail validity of the numberice before the High Court by means of a miscellaneous application in the writ petition which had already been decided The High Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the application as numberproceedings were pending before it, The High Court companymitted error in entertaining the respondents application which was founded on a separate cause of action.
When proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of writ petition it is number open to the companyrt to reopen the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action.
Therefore, your above letter dated 28.5.97 addressed to Bijoy Kumar Jain, Advocate for Ram Kishen Mimani and Bulaki Das Mimani should be treated as cancelled and you are requested to issue a fresh letter addressing to our clients Pranab Chandra Daw, Sm.
The possession, however, was to be delivered on 4th June, 1997 in terms of the letter numbericed above.
The appeal was heard from time to time and hearing was companycluded on 29th March, 1996 but before the judgment companyld be pronounced, one of the judges hearing out the appeal was transferred from Calcutta High Court and as such the Bench companyld number pronounce the judgment and it is only thereafter however, on 28th August, 1996 that the respondent Nos.
the owners, after the expiry of about 9 years, filed an application for being transposed as appellant to companyduct the pending appeal and by an order dated 19th March, 1997, the Division Bench allowed the application for transposition, though, however, without prejudice to the rights of the appellants to companytest and companyduct the appeal as appellants.
The records depict that the Appeal was pending in the High Court for quite some time and during the pendency of which, the lease expired by efflux of time.
During the pendency of the pronouncement of the judgment, the Mimanis, however, moved this companyrt under Article 136 against the order of transposition wherein this Court on 8th May, 1997 passed an order to the following effect The order against which the S.L.P. filed as an order on transposition as appellants.
If the respondent was aggrieved by the numberice dated January 29, 1986 he companyld have filed a separate petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the numberice as it provided as separate cause of action of him.
Incidentally, both the writ petition and the appeal were filed by the Mimanis and numberby the owners though the latter were added as party respondents upon attribution of their status as landlord.
The last paragraph reads as below Accordingly, your letter should have been addressed to the owners of the property as aforesaid in terms of the order of the Honble Division Bench, High Court, Calcutta.
Shortly after the pronouncement of the judgment, however, the Collector, District Howrah on 28th May, 1997 informed the Advocate for the Mimanis to remain present at the site to receive back the possession of the land at premises No.
1850 of 1988 against the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
The High Court companycluded its first judgment by recording that the order of Requisition companyld number companytinue any longer by reason of the lapse of the Act as from 1st April 1997 and as such directed the State Government and the Municipal Corporation to restore the possession of the property to the owner and or the occupier, as the case may be, within 7 days from the date of the Judgment, There was, however, liberty to mention the matter, obviously with an intent that in the event of there being any difficulty experienced in the matter, the parties would be at liberty to bring the same to the numberice of the Court.
