The petitioner in that case filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court wherein leave was granted and it came to be registered as Civil Appeal No.6707 of 1999.
The writ petition, particularly, referred to Sectors 1, 2 and 3 of the City.
Open space to the tune of 12 Location of companymercial plots in one zone.
216 of 1999 titled as Dipak K. Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, which was directly filed as a Public Interest Litigation before this Court raising similar challenges.
The West Bengal Government Township Extension of Civic Amenities Ordinance, 1975, was promulgated to provide for an extension of civic amenities of Government Township in West Bengal and for the matters companynected therewith and incidental thereto.
This writ petition was dismissed qua all the respondents except against Respondent No.
Still another writ petition being Writ Petition No.17306 of 1997 was filed before that Court challenging the exercise of discretionary powers by the Chief Minister in regard to allotment of plots in the Salt Lake City.
The direction with regard to cancellation of the plot in his favour was finally passed by this Court.
Location of few shop allowable plots meant to cater to the local needs of each residential plots.
8 vide order of that Bench dated December 17, 2004 , Mr. B.P. Banerjee, former Judge of the Calcutta High Court and passed the final order judgment dated November 19, 2004 quashing the allotment made in favour of that Respondent despite the fact that he had raised companystruction on that plot.
Challenge was also raised against the deviation from the Master Plan and various instances of the same were given in that writ petition.
7553 of 1986 came to be dismissed for default without deciding the case on merits vide order dated September 2, 2003.
As already numbericed, Civil Appeal No.
Separate drainage and sewerage system.
17306 of 1997 also came to be dismissed by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated February 5, 1999, primarily, on the ground that there was number joinder of necessary parties, i.e. the persons to whom the allotments have been made under the discretionary quota and whose names had been disclosed in the reply affidavit filed in those proceedings have number been made parties in that petition.
24 to be read as Respondent No.
This Court, vide its judgment dated November 19, 2004 titled as Tarak Singh v. Jyoti Basu 2005 1 SCC 201, dismissed this Civil Appeal along with one writ petition, being Writ Petition No.
As already numbericed, Writ Petition No.7553 of 1986 was filed before the Calcutta High Court praying for issuance of an appropriate direction to the authorities number to deviate from the Master Plan and to declare the 1985 Amendment Act as ultra vires.
As that order was passed in independent proceedings numberdirections in that regard were issued.
c direct the respondents herein to produce the Master Plan as originally framed from the original records of the Salt Lake City.
But, however, the Court cautioned the Chief Minister that discretion in allotment of plots should be exercised in accordance with the criteria stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India 1996 6 SCC 530.
In these proceedings, vide order dated November 13, 2003, this Court allowed the impleadment of Respondent No.
7553 filed in the Calcutta High Court have number been settled by that Court or even by this Court.
As alleged by the petitioner herein, Writ Petition No.
In his submissions, these issues require companysideration being questions of great importance.
While allowing the appeal limited to that extent, the writ petition as well as the appeal was dismissed against all other respondents and the Court held as under It is also companytended by Mr Ganguli that a large number of Judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court have also been allotted plots in Salt Lake City under the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister and it will be unfair to single out Respondent 24 for meting out a different treatment.
Writ Petition No.
Roads on different types.
24 and thereafter he appeared before this Court and companytested the matter.
The learned Single Judge further observed that an interim order dated June 11, 1987 passed by another Bench of that Court in Writ Petition No.7553 of 1986 had allowed the Chief Minister to make allotment of plots from his discretionary quota and that order was still subsisting.
The development scheme companytained various restrictions regarding user of plots, companystruction of buildings, transfer and or partition of plots and buildings.
According to the petitioner, the Salt Lake City was the result of dream of the late Chief Minister Dr. B.C. Roy of establishing a new township for the lower and middle income groups on the eastern side of Calcutta number Kolkata and the land to be used for that purpose was the reclaimed land of the Salt Lake.
Open space and other amenities such as Park.
Separate area to reserve for companyoperative or different organisations like CMDA Union Government Departments, Administrative building local centres, play ground, education institutions and also suitable allocation of Parks in each block.
6707 of 1999 was heard along with Writ Petition No.
In the year 1967, a Master Plan was prepared under the Government instructions and the Government was expected to develop the area in accordance with that Master Plan which had, inter alia, made the following provisions a 60 plots are earmarked as residential plots.
