Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) In this writ application the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs: "a) Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 Calcutta Municipal Corporation or its men, agents and subordinates to take immediate steps for stoppage of construction work on the land of the petitioner being 7 cot tans 14 chittacks in Block 'L' in C.I.T. Scheme -VIIM formed out of Old Premises No. 92, Bagmari Road, Kolkata presently premises No. 92/2/1C. Bagmari Road. Kolkata; b) Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Calcutta Municipal Corporation being respondent Nos. 1 to 4 or its men, agents and subordinates to cancel the sanctioned plan, if there is any, with immediate effect in respect of the land of the petitioner being 7 Cottahs 14 Chittacks in Block 'L' in C.I.T. Scheme -VIIM formed out of Old Premises No. 92, Bagmari Road, Kolkata presently Premises No. 92/2/1C, Bagmari Road, Kolkata; c) Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 8 being the Police authority as also the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 being the Corporation authorities to take immediate steps for stoppage of construction work which is going on in the plot of the land of the petitioner being 7 Cottahs 14 Chittacks in Block V in C.I.T. Scheme -VIIM formed out Old Premises No. 92, Bagmari Road. Kolkata presently Premises No. 92/2/ 1C, Sagmari Road, Kolkata." The case made out by the petitioner may epitomized thus: The land to dispute originally belonged to a Debottar Estate but the same was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after giving compensation to the said Debottar Estate. After such acquisition, the Government transferred the land to the Calcutta Improvement Trust ("CIT"). CIT in its term agreed to lease out the land for 99 years to the petitioner and the petitioner paid the premium to the CIT and took possession of the same. Recently, on or about March 14, 2002, the employees of the petitioner noticed that some unknown persons were busy digging up earth at the disputed land and had also dismantled a portion of the boundary wall. The petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 9 on the basis of an alleged purchase from one Debidas Mukhopadhay. a professed Shebait of the Debottar Estate is trying to make construction on the land. Although the petitioner approached the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and the local police station to stop the illegal construction, they were reluctant in the matter of taking any step for discontinuation of the construction on the land of the petitioner. Hence this application.
(2.) Mr. De, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent No. 9 has taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ application itself. Objections of Mr. De are twofold.
(3.) First, he contends that even on the basis of averments made in the writ application, no deed of lease having been executed between CIT and the petitioner, simply by mere payment of premium to a prospective lessor, an intended lessee cannot acquire any interest in the land and thus the petitioner, in the absence of any interest in the land in question, cannot maintain this writ application.;