Ambia vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

The present application being R.V.W. 101 of 2017 along with an application being C.A.N. No.4109 of 2017 has been preferred inter alia praying for

review of the order dated 11th January, 2017 passed in W.P. No.33664 of 2014. For condonation of the delay in preferring the review application, the

petitioner/applicant has also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being C.A.N. No.4110 of 2017. This Court is satisfied with the

explanation given towards the delay in preferring the review application and as such the application for condonation of delay is allowed.

Drawing the attention of this Court to the order dated 11th January, 2017, Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the applicant/writ

petitioner submits that no one appeared on behalf of the writ petitioner on 11th January, 2017 and as such the Court was not apprised of the proper

facts. By the said order the writ petition was dismissed primarily on the ground that though the cause of action accrued in 2008 whereby allotment of

land in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on 2nd May, 2008, the writ petition was, however, filed in the year 2014. Such delay and laches towards

preferring the writ petition was not found to have been properly explained and, accordingly, for such laches the writ petition was dismissed and the

Court did not decide the writ petition on merits.

He submits that after the issuance of the memo dated 2nd May, 2008 appropriate steps were taken by the petitioner and, in fact, the respondents

maintained a deceptive silence. In support of such contention, he referred to the documents annexed at pages 40, 41, 45, 47, 51, 55 and 59 of the writ

petition. From the said documents it appears that a lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner pertaining to the land in question on 20th

August, 2007 by the Haldia Development Authority (in short, the HDA) and possession of the said land was handed over to the petitioner and the

petitioner made regular payment of lease rent. By a memo dated 2nd May, 2008, a proposal was given by HDA for resumption of the said plot

offering an alternative plot. Subsequent thereto, by a memo dated 17th February, 2009 it was intimated to the petitioner that HDA “is provisionally

offering 6.0 decimal of land in mouzas Debhog, J.L. No.149 and Hatiberia, J.L. No.167 for setting up of your office at Haldia. Out of 6.0 decimal, 2.5

decimal is the alternative land for cancellation of the lease plot of land in mouza Debhog and 3.5 decimal of land is the additional land offering to you

as per your letter dated 04.02.2008 subject to the approval of the Board of HADâ€​.

Thereafter, a Board meeting was held on 16th November, 2009 and it was decided that HDA would resume back the concerned land and will allot the

same quantity of land in a nearby area. The extract of the said resolution was also communicated to the petitioner but surprisingly thereafter the HDA

did not take any step to implement their own decision though the petitioner was agreeable to accept such proposal and submitted representations to

that effect on 19th April, 2009 and, thereafter, on 9th October, 2013 and lastly on 22nd September, 2014 but the said representations were not

responded to and the petitioner was constrained to prefer the writ petition in the year 2014. As such, the observation that there was laches on the part

of the writ petitioner to prefer the writ petition is not sustainable.

He further submits that a registered lease deed cannot be cancelled on the basis of a mere resolution of the Board. Such cancellation has to be done

by a registered deed. The land in respect of which the lease deed was effected is still lying vacant and the petitioner is continuing to pay the lease

rent. In support of such contention, Mr. Mukherjee has placed reliance upon documents which have been brought on records by a supplementary

affidavit. Let the supplementary affidavit be kept on record. Mr. Alam, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 submits that the

delay towards preference of the writ petition was not properly explained and the petitioner did not appear before the Court even on earlier occasion

prior to issuance of the order dated 11th January, 2017 and as such the writ petition was rightly rejected.

It is well settled that a power to review can be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include the misconception of fact or law by

the Court. In the instant case, it appears from the record that after issuance of the first memo 2nd May, 2008, a board resolution was adopted on 19th

May, 2008. Thereafter, representations were submitted by the petitioner on 20th June, 2008 and again on 4th December, 2008. The HDA responded

by a letter dated 17th February, 2009 reiterating its earlier proposal and a further Board resolution was adopted on 16th November, 2009 but the HDA

thereafter maintained a deceptive silence as such the petitioner submitted several representations before the authorities on and from 19th April, 2012

till 22nd September, 2014 and, thereafter, the writ petition was filed in the month of December, 2014. The Court could not be apprised of the said facts

due to absence of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.

Under such circumstances, the order dated 11th January, 2017 is recalled and the review application being R.V.W. No.101 of 2017 and the application

being being C.A.N. No.4109 of 2017 are disposed of and writ petition is taken up for final hearing. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed

for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to consider and dispose of the prayer of the petitioner dated 19th April, 2012 and 9th

October, 2013 to grant term lease of 6 decimal of land of similar nature in similar area on same terms and conditions of the earlier lease deed dated

20th August, 2007 or return the land of 2.5 decimal which was granted in long term lease being plot No.1977 (P) & 1978(P) J.L. No.149, Mouza-

Debhog, and J.L. No.167 of Mouza-Hatiberia and Purba Medinipur, West Bengal.

Mr. Mukherjee submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to accept an alternative plot in lieu of the plot in respect of the lease deed has already

been executed and is subsisting till date, as would be explicit from the repeated representations submitted by the petitioner but the same has not been

responded to till date. Mr. Alam submits that the HDA are ready and willing to grant alternative plot to the petitioner upon resumption of the land in

respect of which the lease deed was executed.

Upon hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon considering the materials on record I am of the opinion that no useful purpose

will be served by keeping the writ petition pending and the matter needs to be relegated to the HAD authorities. Accordingly, this Court directs the

petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondent no.3 enclosing all relevant documents within a period of three weeks from date.

Within six weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation, the respondent no.3 shall consider the same upon granting an opportunity of

hearing to a representative of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner. With the

above observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this

order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.