COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs. DWARIKA PROSAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is at the instance of Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th June, 1997, passed by a learned single Judge, in writ petition No. 171 of 1997. The learned trial Judge by the said order disposed of the writ application, inter alia directing the present appellant to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question namely 4/H/1, Shew Prasad Street, Calcutta, within one week from the date of the order. The prayer of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1, in the present for damages for wrongful occupation after the order of derequisition had, however, been left open and the said writ petitioner/respondent No. 1, had been given opportunity to claim such damages in a properly framed suit.

(2.) Undisputed facts are that the writ petitioner is the owner of the said premises which was requisitioned under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions Act, 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on the basis of the memo dated 7th November, 1970 of the first Land Acquisition Collector, respondent No. 3 and possession thereof had been delivered on 9th of November, 1970, since then the premises has been utilised for providing accommodation to eight families of Police personnel of the Calcutta Police. Over payment of rent compensation and interest thereon, proceedings were initiated for arbitration and against the decisions therein, appeal before this court are pending. The Land Acquisition Collector, derequisitioned the premises by order No. 741-REQ dated 21.11.95 and directed the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal to make over possession on 5th January, 1996. Records reveal that similar direction was also issued by the then Commissioner of Police. Such direction for re-delivery of possession had to be repeated. Since possession was not delivered and correspondences from the side of the petitioner for the purpose of obtaining re-delivery of possession emphasising the expiry of 25 years which was the maximum period in terms of section 10B of the said Act, proved abortive, the petitioner was compelled to seek relief by way of handing over of vacant possession and payment of compensation through the writ application out of which the present appeal arises. On 20th May, 1997, the court, inter alia, passed on order directing the application to come up on 10th of June, 1997 and also directing the Commissioner of Police to be impleaded as a party to the application. The application thereafter appeared on 17th of June, 1997, when the order impugned in the appeal had been passed. The operation of the order, however, remained stayed in terms of the order of this court on the application preferred in connection with the present appeal with a direction for hearing of the appeal and the application together on the fixed date. We have heard out the appeal and the application.

(3.) It is pertinent to note at this stage that between the appearance of the application first before the learned trial Judge on 20th May, 1997 and disposal thereof on the 17th of June, 1997, no affidavit could be filed on behalf of the present appellant-no direction having been issued by the court to that effect. As annexures to the stay application before us on behalf of the appellant, a letter of the Commissioner of Police, addressed to the Home (Police Department) of the State Government, dated 10th of June, 1997, has been disclosed, embodying a proposal for acquisition of the premises in question, which had been claimed as ideal for serving the purpose, and the fact of non-availability of any suitable alternative accommodation, enclosing therewith also a site plan. Copies of the said letter were forwarded to the Deputy Secretary, Land and Land Reforms Department of the State Government as also to the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta. In addition to the above, the appellant has also annexed judgments of the apex court as also of this court in justification of their contention that in similar cases opportunities had been granted to the Requiring Authority by such courts for acquiring the required premises or property through a proper proceeding for acquisition. On behalf of the appellant, it has been streneously submitted before us that since the application for writ had been disposed of at a very early stage and even before the expiry of the time fixed by the relevant rules of this court for filing of the affidavit-in-opposition, these materials could not be disclosed and brought to the notice of the learned trial Judge for being properly considered. Lastly, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the order impugned in the appeal is not a speaking order.