- (1.) The appeal arises out of an order of May 13, 2016 by which a writ petition for determining the appropriate occupation charges payable by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to the writ petitioner company has been dismissed on the ground that upon a previous contempt petition being dropped, the writ petitioner company had no further cause of action to pursue the subsequent action.
(2.) The matter pertains to a property at Ripon Street. Acquisition proceedings were initiated at the behest of the State or the Corporation, but they lapsed. Fresh acquisition proceedings were thereafter initiated and it is not in dispute that the land and the building standing thereon have been acquired. It is equally irrelevant whether compensation for the acquisition has been paid or such matter has yet to attain finality. The present proceedings are confined to the period between January 20, 2000 and December 15, 2013. The gazette notification for the fresh acquisition under Section 4(1) under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on February 16, 2013.
(3.) An earlier writ petition, W.P. No. 1605 of 2003, was brought to this Court with the principal prayer being for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings - LA Case No. Act-1/9/99 - in respect of premises no. 42, Ripon Street, Kolkata had lapsed by efflux of time in terms of Section 11A of the Act of 1894. This Court found that such earlier acquisition proceedings had lapsed and it was observed in the order dated June 26, 2012 as follows: "Since the proceedings for the acquisition of the land lapsed, and the respondents incurred an obligation to give the petitioners possession of the property, the petitioners are entitled to occupation charge for the period from January 20, 2000 till the date of delivery of possession. The occupation charge has not been determined, and I think it will be appropriate to direct the Collector to determine the occupation charge payable from January 20, 2000." Such order of June 26, 2012 was carried in appeal by the Corporation. The appeal was disposed of by an order of March 25, 2015 upon the Appellate Court noticing that the "Collector was to determine the occupation charges payable from 20th January 2000 onwards." The impugned order was not interfered with. Further, the submission on behalf of the appellant therein was also recorded to the following effect: "... Learned Additional Advocate General also informs the Court that the amount payable as rent up to a day prior to declaration under Section 4 under the occupation charges from 20th January, 2000 to 22nd December, 2013 be determined by the collector and paid within two months from date." The appeal was disposed of "in the light of such submission". Since no determination of the occupation charges came to be made by the Collector within any reasonable time, the writ petitioner company instituted contempt proceedings. By an order dated August 3, 2015, the contempt petition - CC No.131 of 2015 - was disposed of without any liberty or leave being reserved in favour of the petitioners and by dropping the contempt proceedings. However, the following passage from the order dated August 3, 2015 has been placed on behalf of the appellant: "...However, there is no basis how the amounts are arrived at, but at this stage the same is furnished by learned Senior Counsel ... appearing on behalf of respondent no.1. We direct the respondent no.2 also to furnish on the other hand information and details.";