ASIM KUMAR RAY,J. - (1.) This revisional application is directed against the judgment dated 8th January, 2003 passed in Misc. Appeal no. 105 of 1992 by the learned District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court, Hooghly affirming the order dated 27th August, 1992 passed in case no. E/Com/Cycle Stand/CGR of 1991 arising out of a proceeding under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The factual background leading to the presentation of the revisional application in a nutshell is that the opposite parties/Railways/Union of India is the owner of a plot no. 2078, Mouza Khalisani No. 1, Sheet No. 2 under Police Station Bhadreshwar, District Hooghly. The said plot is measuring 650 sq.ft. One Ratan Khan was operating a cycle stand in the suit land having temporary licence. The said licence was terminated with effect from 10th April, 1968. Thereafter one Dulal Chandra Koley came into possession of the same and unauthorisedly operating the said cycle stand. Dulal Chandra Koley was directed to vacate the said land by the Railway Administration vide registered letter dated 6/11.11.1975 but in vain. On the death of Dulal his son Tapan Chandra Koley and one Sunil Kr. Shaw, petitioners herein had been operating the said cycle stand. They were subsequently served with a notice dated 20th March, 1990 asking them to vacate the suit land. But to no effect. On 27th August, 1992 the Estate Officer/opposite party no. 1 directed the petitioners to vacate the said land within fifteen days from the date of publication of the order by exercising the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
(2.) Being aggrieved by the said order dated 27th August, 1992 passed in Case no. E/Com/Cycle Stand/CGR of 1991, the petitioners herein filed a Misc. Appeal being no. 105 of 1992 before the learned Additional District and Sessions cum Fast Track Court, Hooghly. Learned Additional District and Sessions cum Fast Track Court, Hooghly passed the impugned order. In this background, the present revisional application has been filed.
(3.) Mr. Asok Chakraborty, learned senior advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 2 herein at the very outset invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 30th March, 2012 and has contended that it was submitted by the learned senior advocate of the other side that is the petitioners that in the event it is found that the notice under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 preceded by a notice under Section 2(g) of the said Act has been served upon the petitioners, then it would be of no requirement to press this application. Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that inspection was offered to Mr. Rakshit, learned junior to Mr. S. P. Roychoudhury. Notice under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was served and it was duly received by the petitioners on 26th September, 1991 in the presence of two witnesses. He has also invited my attention to the Memo of Appeal specially ground no. 2 of the petitioners in connection with Misc. Appeal no. 105 of 1992 and has contended that notice to show cause was properly answered by the appellants-petitioners. Therefore, the revisional application has no merit and it may be dismissed.;