Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment and order dated 25th August, 1999 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on the Writ Petition, being Civil Order No. 11524 (W) of 1993, filed by the predecessor in interest of the appellants herein. The writ petition was dismissed, on contest, without costs.
(2.) It was filed praying for the following reliefs : "(a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, each of them, their men, agents and subordinates to cancel, withdraw and rescind the purported order of vesting of excess vacant land situated and lying at premises Nos. 24, 25 and 26 South Sinthee Road Calcutta and to quash all proceedings of vesting and to declare to the effect that land situated at premises Nos. 24, 25 and 26 South Sinthi Road is not a vacant land within the meaning of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976; (b) A writ of and/or writ in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondents and each of them, their men, agents and subordinates to certify and transmit the records relating to the case to this Hon'ble Court for doing conscionable justice by quashing the purported order of vesting and/or subsequent steps taken by the respondent authorities; (c) A writ of and/or writ in the nature of Prohibition commanding the respondents and each of them, their men, agents and subordinates to for bear from giving any effect and/or further effect of vesting excess land situated and lying at premises Nos. 24, 25 and 26 South Sinthi Road, Calcutta., (d) Rule Nisi in terms of prayer (a), (b) and (c) above. (e) Injunction restraining the respondents and each of them, their men, agents and subordinates from taking possession of the said premises and/or from altering the nature and character of the said premises till the disposal of this application. (f) Ad interim order in terms of prayer (e) above. (g) Costs. (h) Such further or ether order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be given as to Your Lordship may deem fit and proper."
(3.) The writ petitioner, Pashupati Nath Paul (since deceased), was owner of several immovable properties. He submitted the required statement under section 6(1) of the Urban land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act 33 of 1976). He applied for exemption under section 20. The Government's decision, rejecting the section 20 application, was recorded in their letter dated 12th December, 1980. After due enquiry, the competent authority prepared the draft statement dated 17th December, 1980; it was duly served on the writ petitioner. He filed objection to the draft statement. Ultimately, the competent authority held that the land owned by the writ petitioner exceeded the ceiling limit by 2880.80 sq. mtr. The excess land was at premises Nos. 24, 25 and 26, South Sinthi Road, Calcutta-700050. The final statement dated 13 July, 1981 was duly prepared and served on the writ petitioner. The notification published under Section 10(1) was duly followed by publication of vesting notification in the Official Gazette on 9th November, 1984. The land stood vested in the Government with effect from 1st November, 1984. By a letter dated 16th January, 1986 the Assistant Chief Valuer of the Calcutta Improvement Trust informed the competent authority that he was unable to take possession of the land in question, as, being landlocked, there was no access to the same. By a letter dated 9th July, 1993 the Senior Valuation Officer of the Calcutta Improvement Trust informed the writ petitioner that in terms of competent authority's order dated 2nd January, 1993 he had taken over the possession of the land in question of 7th July, 1993. It was claimed by the writ petitioner that on the basis of the said Assistant Chief Valuer's said letter, he made a representation dated 9th July, 1993 to the competent authority for review of his decision. In the aforesaid background the writ petition dated 13th August, 1993 was filed for the reliefs quoted hereinbefore.;