Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)1CALLT591(HC)
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The present writ application under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Judgment and order dated 2nd May, 2003 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, hereinafter referred to 'as the Tribunal', in O.A. No. 2908 of 2002.2. Grievances of the writ petitioner may briefly be stated as follows:The petitioner purchased land in 1984 situated in Mouza-Purba Khamar Simulia, P.S. Hanskhali in the District-Nadia being R.S. Khatian Nos. 1421, R.S. Dag Nos. 650, 651, 652, 655 comprising of an area of 1.77 acres out of 2.86 acres from the recorded owners Sri Ashim Kumar Sarkar and others, being the heirs of the recorded owner Nihar Ranjan Sarkar, through a Registered Sale Kobala. After such purchase, the petitioner got possession of the land and started paying rent to the Government and the Government accepted the same. Petitioner, applied for correction of Records of Rights and the concerned authority duly corrected the Record of R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1543; JT2002(3)SC324; 2002(3)SCALE108; (2002)4SCC188; [2002]2SCR620
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. Leave granted.2. 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 corrected accordingly. The High Court, on the writ petition of the respondents, has set aside that order and held it to be ineffective so also the action of the appellants of taking possession of land allegedly on 5th September, 1996. The appellants have been prohibited by the impugned judgment from interfering with lawful work of construction carried on by the respondents in accordance with the sanctioned plans and the writ petition was allowed accordingly. The State is in appeal.3. Section 4 of the Act, inter alia, provides that the State Government may from time to time by notification declare that with effect from the date mentioned i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)1CALLT231(HC),2001(1)CHN259
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This writ application arises out of a judgment and order dated 22nd August, 2000 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the 'said Tribunal') in T.A. 761 of 2000 arising out of W.P. No. 8247 (W) of 1999.2. The petitioners herein are transferees of two plots being portion of Plot No. 356 and plot No. 358 situate in Mouza Kalikapur. The basic fact of matter is not much in dispute.3. In the revisional survey settlement records of rights Plot No. 356 was recorded as Beel, whereas Plot No. 358 was recorded as Beel Machchas. The original owner of the said land was one Bejoy Krishna Roy, who died on 3.11.1960. The legislature of the State of West Bengal enacted West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') to provide for the State acquisition of estates, of rights of intermediaries therein and of certain rights of raiyats and under-raiyats and of the rights of certa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1996)1CALLT78(HC)
Basudeva Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the confirming Judgement and Decree passed by the 4th Court of the Additional District Judge, Midnapore in Title Appeal No. 258/80 dated 22nd December, 1981 dismissing the plaintiffs appeal.2. The facts leading to this appeal are summarily stated :-That the appellant who was the plaintiff in T.S. 34/83 in the S.D. Court of Munsif at Jhargram filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit property known as 'Nutanpukar' appertaining to Mouzsa Ramgarh in Plot Nos. 78 and 79 originally belonged to the ancestors of the defendants 1 to 10. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the ancestors of the landlords/defendants had agreed to lease out the suit tank with the surrounding bank following which the plaintiff executed a Kobuliyat in favour of the landlords who had accepted the same and passed receipt in lieu of rent. Thus, the plaintiff became a tenant in respect of the disputed Tank with its bank unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1994Cal95,98CWN885
ORDERArun Kumar Dutta, J. 1. The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-12-1992 passed by Susanta Chatterji, J. in C.O. No. 10579 (W) of 1992.2. The facts giving rise to the said writ petition may shortly be staled as follows:--One Molay Kumar Guha was originally the owner of the Hotel, namely, M/s. Sea Gull, on part of plot No. 240, Khata No. 96, Mouza-Govinda Basan, P.S. Ramnagar (at present Digha), District Midnapore. After obtaining a sanctioned plan from the then Authority, Pudima II Gram Panchayat, on 19-1-1990 for construction of five-storied building thereon, and raising partly finished two-storied building he had been carrying onHotel business by paying taxes and complying with requisite formalities therefor. By a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 7-6-1991 Sushil Pal Chowdhury and Dulal Pal Chowdhury had purchased the said Hotel with all that partly finished two-storied pucca 'L' pattern structure/building standing thereon, including the business ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2103; JT1993(3)SC433; 1993(2)SCALE749; 1993Supp(4)SCC674; [1993]3SCR481
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal arises against the judgment dated October 8, 1991 of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court made in F.M.A.T. No. 22532 of 1991. The first respondent, a limited Company filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Civil Order No. 16339 (W) of 1998 for a mandamus to refrain the appellants from giving effect to the vesting of the lands in Dag No. 1, Khatian No. 10, Tauzi No. 56, J.L. No. 26, Mouza Chowkgaria within P.S. Kasba, admeasuring 128.40 acres and to take possession of tank fisheries lying therein pursuant to the provisions of West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, Act 1 of 1954, for short 'the Act'. The learned Single Judge directed an action under Section 10(2) of the Act after giving an opportunity to the respondents and to take possession of the said lands pursuant thereto. On appeal the Division Bench in the impugned judgment held that the appellants should take action under the West Bengal Land Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1993Cal215,97CWN142
ORDER1. Population growth and modern technological developments by themselves pose a great threat to the very existence of living and non-living organisms -- this is not confined to a particular region, but it has crossed trans-national frontiers. In 1972 the Stockholm Conference under the auspices of the United Nations did deliberate upon the issues of protection of human environment. The Habitat Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, 1976 and the World Water Conference at Argentina in 1977 recorded a detailed discussion as regards the water pollution. It is not out of place to mention that water pollution along with the pollution in the air and the noise pollution are in a much higher degree in the metropolitan centres than in the rural sectors and as such population influx and technological developments can be ascribed to be the two basic factors for such environmental degradation. The National Environmental Engineering Research Institute has confirmed that levels of sulphur dioxi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(2)ALT1
ORDERImmaneni Panduranga Rao, J.1. The above two writ petitions are inter-connected. The sole petitioner in W.P.No. 3865/91 who is the proprietor of M/s. Vamsi Enterprises and who is impleaded as the second respondent in W.P.No. 18260/88 (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') has taken on lease a part of plot No. 61 in a locality called Pragathi Nagar Colony and applied for shifting of his business as a wholesale dealer in kerosene from a locality called Venkatagiri. He applied for licence and permission to the Commissioner of Police, Controller of Explosives, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and other authorities. The Controller of Explosives, Government of India, Nagpur and the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad granted permission. All the required formalities have been complied with by the petitioner. At that stage, the Pragathi Nagar Colony Welfare Association (for short 'the Welfare Association) represented by its President and three other residents of Pragathi Nagar Colon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2205; 1990(2)SCALE406; 1991Supp(1)SCC414; [1990]Supp1SCR91; 1990(2)LC681(SC)
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. This appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution arises against the order dated July 5, 1971 made by the Calcutta High Court in Civil Order No. 1826 of 1971 dismissing the Writ petition in limine. The material facts are that the lands of Hal Plot Nos. 2202, 2204, 2206, 2209, 2210,2212,2214,2219,2220,2225.2226,2228,2229,2232,2233,2234,2236 and 2239 of Mouza Kishorimohanpore, J.L. No. 168, P.S. Jayanagar were recorded in the final Khatian Nos. 143 and 144 of J.L. No. 168 as 'Tank Fishery' (being used for pisciculture) and by operation of Section 6(1)(e) of West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act 1 of 1954, for short 'the Act' stand excluded from its purview. The Asstt. Settlement Officer initiated suo motu proceedings on May 14, 1968 that they have not been properly classified and prima facie require correction of classifications of those lands. Accordingly, he drew up the proceedings under Section 44(2A) of the Act, issued notice to the respondents who a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1988CriLJ569
Amarendra Chandra Sengupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Malda on 16-6-84 under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 201 I.P.C.2. The learned Sessions Judge passed the said order of conviction and sentence on the finding that the appellant murdered his wife Hem Mondal on or about 11 -5-77 and removed the dead-body of Hem Mondal. The learned Sessions Judge found on the basis of the Statement recorded in the FIR which is not a substantive piece of evidence that the occurrence took place on 11-5-77. The father of the victim girl (P.W. 1) is a resident of Deoritola. On being informed by the appellant's father Madan Mondal of Shibpore where the appellant lived with his wife that his daughter, the wife of the appellant, had gone out with the appellant to attend a marriage feast, he returned home in search for his daughter and after learning that his daughter could not be found in the village he lodged the said F.I.R...
Tag this Judgment!