Aniruddha Bose Vs The Estate Manager, Urban Development Department, Government of West Bengal & Ors.

By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day''s list and

taken up for consideration along with the application for stay.

The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order rendered by the

learned Single Judge on 24th March, 2017 in WP 7012 (W) of 2017 (

Aniruddha Bose vs. The Estate Manager, Urban Development Department,

Government of West Bengal & Ors.).

The appellant before us was the writ petitioner who filed an application

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 27th

February, 2017, issued by the Estate Manager, Kalyani Urban Development Department, whereby the said Department cancelled the allotment of land and

the lease agreement dated 17th April, 1990. The concerned department

communicated to the writ petitioner that the land allotted in favour of Smt. Ila

Bose stood cancelled and the lease agreement dated 17th April, 1990 was also

cancelled for violation of the terms of the lease deed. The order dated 27th

February, 2017, which was issued on behalf of the Governor of the State of

West Bengal, the Estate Manager, Kalyani, was communicated to the estate of

Ila Bose and/or legal heirs, Dr. Aniruddha Bose. In the said order, it was also

stated that the Governor has been pleased to resume and cancel the lease

agreement and lease deed dated 17th April, 1990 and forfeit the salami with

interest deposited towards the plot No.B-5/168 at Kalyani. Hence, a request

was made to hand over possession of the plot and all original documents in

respect of the plot within fifteen days as the Government re-enters into

possession with immediate effect.

The learned Single Judge, while hearing the matter, considered the

respective contentions of the parties extensively and came to the conclusion

that there was no cause to intervene with the order dated 27th February, 2017,

on account of failure to fulfil the contractual obligation by the writ petitioner.

As a result, the writ petition stood dismissed.

In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, no interference is usually

warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed. Even on a

plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities. As such, the impugned judgment and

order does not warrant any interference.

However, purely in the interest of justice, we are of the view that an

opportunity may be given to the appellant, Aniruddha Bose, to pay the market

value of the plot-in-question to the concerned authority of the State of West

Bengal, which, from the e-Assessment Slip handed over by the learned

advocate for the State, appears to be 31,78,310/- as on the query date i.e. 27th

April, 2017.

In the event, the entire sum of Rs.31,78,310/- is paid by the appellant

to the concerned authority of the State of West Bengal within a period of four

(4) weeks from date, there shall be no effect in respect of the order dated 27th

February, 2017 issued in the name of the Governor of the State of West

Bengal. We, however, make it clear that this time-frame is peremptory in

nature and in the event of any failure on the part of the appellant to pay the

amount as stated above to the concerned authority of the State of West

Bengal, the order dated 27th February, 2017 shall come into immediate effect

and all consequential steps shall be taken by the concerned authority of the

State, in accordance with law.

The appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of accordingly.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to

the learned advocates for the parties.