Shubhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated March 20, 1996 passed by the Appellate Authority and Secretary, Urban Development Department modifying the order dated February 9, 1993 passed by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act of 1976 in case No. 1257 of 1976.
(2.) IN spite of service of notice, none appears for the Respondents to oppose the writ petition. However, Mr. Batabyal, the learned advocate for the Petitioner, filed a xerox copy of the affidavit -in -opposition purportedly filed on behalf of the Respondents. Let the xerox copy of the said affidavit -in -opposition be kept with the record.
(3.) IT is contended that the Petitioner is the owner of the properties described in sches. A and B comprising in plot Nos. 259, 260, 289, 313, 314, 318, 319, 320 and 324 of Mouza: Chandannagar. The A schedule properties are recorded as bastu and is covered by a building and appurtenances thereto. The properties covered under schedule B are used for the purpose of brick manufacturing. However, the writ petitioner inducted M/s. J.N. Pal and Brothers in the B Schedule properties for a limited period. Some of the co -sharers of the writ Petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 60 of 1988 and the said suit has been decreed on April 27, 1989 acknowledging the right, title and possession of the Petitioner in respect of schedules A and B properties. Some disputes arose between the Petitioner and the Pals and the Pals instituted Title Suit No. 63 of 1979 and the said suit is still pending adjudication. After enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Competent Authority under the said Act of 1976 started case No. 1257 of 1976 and forwarded a draft statement to the writ Petitioner asking her to submit objection. The writ Petitioner submitted her objections to the draft statement. The writ Petitioner, also, filed an application under Sec. 20 of the said Act of 1976, on February 8, 1992, wherein the writ Petitioner prayed for exemption alleging that such exemption was necessary to avoid under hardships to the writ Petitioner. The Assistant Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Government of West Bengal by memo No. 446 -UL -IL -4/92 dated February 7, 1992 intimated the writ Petitioner that the prayer for exemption of the writ Petitioner could not be disposed of due to the pendency of the Title Suit No. 63 of 1979. Accordingly, the writ Petitioner filed an application before the Competent Authority for stay of the proceedings being case No. 1257 of 1976 till a decision on the application for exemption is arrived at by the Government. However, the Competent Authority did not dispose of the said application separately, but considered the same at the time of final disposal of the case No. 1257 of 1976. The Competent Authority in the order dated February 9, 1993 rejected the prayer for stay on the round that the Assistant Secretary concerned did not send the copy of the said memorandum to the Competent Authority prohibiting him from proceeding with the case. It was, further, observed that the writ Petitioner did not file any paper in respect of the pending case before the competent civil Court. Therefore, the Competent Authority rejected the prayer for stay, as he had no records as to the exemption petition. The Competent Authority permitted the Petitioner to retain 1000 sq. meters of land in A schedule properties and directed vesting of 5000 sq. meters from the A schedule properties. The B schedule properties have also been vested. Before the Competent Authority one Shrimati Archana Pal applied for her intervention on the allegation that she is in possession of the B schedule properties as a lessee under the writ Petitioner. The Competent Authority heard the said Shrimati Archana Pal.;