- (1.) The Judgment of the Court was as follows: Re: C.A.N. No. 8090 of 2011 (Section 5) Let supplementary affidavit as filed today be kept with the record. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) Assailing the judgment and order dated 7th December, 2004 passed in C.R. No. 10839 (W) of 1981, this writ application has been filed.
(3.) The impugned order reads such: 7.12.2004. - By this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the Government communication dated 12th March, 1981 whereby allotment of a plot of land in favour of the petitioner at Block DD in Sector-I of the Salt Lake Township was cancelled. Rule was issued and It was duly served. None has come forward to file Affidavit-in-opposition. I have gone through the petition and I have heard Mr. Chatterjee. It appears to me that the petitioner was initially allotted the aforesaid plot of land by the order of the appropriate authority. In terms of the said allotment the petitioner has paid 50% premium and even the petitioner was intimated about allotment of the plot and the petitioner identified and also expressed his choice about the plot. Everything was done and then the petitioner was waiting for further intimation for payment of the balance amount of premium. Instead of receiving such positive intimation, the petitioner has received the aforesaid impugned communication. I am of the view that the respondent Government cannot resale from its contract since after the petitioner having acted upon and performed his part, the respondent Government should have performed its part by passing necessary order of allotment accepting the balance amount of premium. Moreover, it appears from the impugned communication that this order of cancellation is bad in law as this should not have been done without giving a chance of hearing to the petitioner. Since valuable right was accreted in favor of the petitioner by way of allotment and such right has been taken away without giving any hearing, therefore on that score also the impugned communication is not sustainable in law. I, accordingly, set aside the impugned communication. Therefore, I direct the Government to execute the necessary lease deed upon petitioner's paying the balance premium of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand) along with other interest at the rate of 18% to be calculated from the date of filing of the writ petition. Such payment shall be made and/or be tendered within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. On such payment being made, necessary lease deed shall be executed. In default of executing the lease deed, the learned Registrar General shall nominate the appropriate Officer not below the rank of Additional Registrar to execute the lease on behalf of the Government in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed and consequently the Rule is made absolute. ...;