SOUMITRA PAL,J. - (1.) Let affidavit-in-opposition to the application being CAN 611 of 2012 be filed by 14th March, 2012. Reply, if any, by 27th March, 2012.
(2.) So far as the prayer for interim order is concerned, referring to the note dated 17th November, 2011 furnished by the Land Manager, Bidhannagar, it is submitted by Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, learned senior advocate for the petitioner that since allotment of plot no. CE 204 was made to the petitioner on 30th April, 1974 and amount was deposited on 8th June, 1974, a subsequent allotment on 24th July, 1978 of the same plot cannot be made in favour of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh without cancelling the initial order of allotment. Submission is though three writ petitions - C.R. 388(W) of 1981, W.P. 7201(W) of 2000 and W.P. 6872(W) of 2011 were moved with notice to the State, State had never informed regarding the allotment made on 24th July, 1978 to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Submission has been made that since the petitioner in W.P. 7201(W) of 2000 had succeeded as the cancellation of allotment in favour of the petitioner by the State was set aside and grave injustice is being done, interim order may be passed. Reliance has been placed on the judgement of the Apex Court in AIR 2004 SCW 2134: Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra and others.
(3.) Mr. Raja Basu Chowdhury, learned advocate for the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, opposing the prayer for interim order, has submitted that mere allotment does not create any vested interest and title cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This apart as lease was executed in the year 1989 between the Government of West Bengal and the State of Arunachal Pradesh and thereafter plot no. CE. 204 has been combined with CE. 203 and plan has been sanctioned by the Bidhannagar Municipality and boundary wall has been constructed and gate has been installed and in view of section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the Government of Arunachal Pradesh is the bonafide purchaser for value, no order may be passed. Further no proceedings had been initiated between the year 1993 and 2000. Relying on the judgements of the Supreme Court in AIR 1964 SC 685 : State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev and in (2004) 6 SCC 765: Hira Tikkoo v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others , it is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. Moreover, submission is the State of Arunachal Pradesh was neither informed by the State of West Bengal that the plot no. CE. 204 had already been allotted in favour of the petitioner nor about the pendency of the court cases.;