Competent Authority Calcutta, Under ... vs David Mantosh And Ors.

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in these appeals, it is necessary to set out the facts 2 in detail, which led to filing of these appeals. The facts set out hereinbelow are taken from the list of dates filed by the parties.

5. 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. ft. (which is a part of and adjacent to a bigger chunk of land measuring around 29 bighas) (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”).

7. 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 now represented by his legal representatives (Respondent Nos. 1 to 7).

9. Suffice it to say, that eventually the suit property along with its adjacent land bearing Nos.73, 60, 72, etc. 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. 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.

13. The Competent Authority by order dated 27.09.1988, however, rejected the prayer made by M/s OBL. The rejection resulted in M/s OBL agreeing to surrender the possession of the entire 6 excess land held by them beyond the prescribed ceiling limit. On 04.01.1990, M/s OBL accordingly surrendered their possession on the land bearing Nos. 58, 60, 72, 73, 79, & 81 situated at Canal Circular Road, Calcutta in favour of the State. The said surrender included the suit property also. The Deputy Secretary, Land & Land Reforms Department then directed M/s OBL to file the statement as required under Sections 8 to 10 of the Act.

14. On 22.01.1990, M/s OBL informed the Competent Authority that they are prepared to surrender the possession of the suit property subject to awarding them compensation as provided under the Act. On 08.02.1990, the Competent Authority served final statement under Section 9 of the Act on M/s OBL. This led to the issuance of a notification by the State under Section 10(1) of the 7 Act which was duly published in the Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary on 15.02.1990 inviting objections from the general public. The Competent Authority, however, did not receive any objection from any person pursuant to the notice published. This was followed by issuance of the final notification 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.

15. The Competent Authority, on 23.05.1990, served notice 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.

16. 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. meters bearing premises Nos. 58, 59, 60, 8 61, 62, 72, 73, 79, & 81 at Canal Circular Road to Respondent No. 8 (Defendant No. 1­M/s Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals) on a long term lease of 30 years. The Respondent No. 8 (Defendant No. 1) then was given possession of the land from the State. The State executed a lease deed dated 02.12.1994 in favour of M/s Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals. Thereafter, M/s Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals set up a hospital at a huge cost, and is running their hospital since the last two decades.

17. In the year 1992, Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff No. 1) woke up from her slumber, and claimed to be the owner and holder of the suit property and part of the adjacent land. The Plaintiff felt aggrieved by the notification 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.

20. 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. As a consequence, thereof, the notification dated 11.05.1990 issued by the State was held to be legal and valid and was accordingly restored.

56. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to try the civil Suits with respect to the lands, which were subjected to ceiling proceedings under the Act, are held to be impliedly barred, since the Act excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

74. We reject the contentions and submissions made on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 7/ Plaintiffs since we have inter alia held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a Civil Suit with respect to proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, being a special and self­contained enactment.

76. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the Division Bench was not justified in allowing the Respondents’ appeal, and decreeing the Civil Suit whereas the Trial Court was right in dismissing the Civil Suit.

77. As a consequence, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned judgments are set aside and the judgment of the Trial Court is restored. As a result thereof, the suit filed by Respondent Nos. 1 53 to 7 out of which these appeals arise is dismissed with no order as to costs.

February 26, 2019.