P.K. Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) The petitioner herein initiated another round of legal battle against the Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta by challenging the impugned order dated June 17, 2005 passed by the said Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta pursuant to the earlier order dated 28th April, 2004 passed by this Hon'ble court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner herein being C. O. No. 16158 (W) of 1992. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order dated June 17, 2005 passed by the Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta is liable to be set aside and/or dismissed as the said order was passed by the respondent Port Trust authorities before disposal of the review application filed by the petitioner for reviewing the earlier order of this Court passed on 28th April, 2004 on the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner herein being C. O. No. 16158 (W) of 1992. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid impugned order dated June 17, 2005 had been passed by the respondent authorities without following the mandate given in the judgment dated 28th April, 2004 passed earlier by this court while finally deciding the writ petition being CO. No. 16158 (W) of 1992.
(2.) Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner submits that there are errors apparent on the face of the record in the order of the Hon'ble Justice Pradipta Ray (as His Lordship then was) passed on April 28, 2004 in the aforesaid petition being C. O. No. 16158 (W) of 1992 and therefore, an application for reviewing the said order was filed before this court which was numbered as R.V.W. 1817 of 2004. From the records it appears that the said review application was filed on 8th June, 2004 but the same has not yet been listed for hearing before the appropriate Bench of this Hon'ble court. Mr. Mukherjee submits that in view of pendency of the aforesaid review application, the Board of Trustees ought to have stayed the proceeding and not to have passed the impugned order.
(3.) Mr. Mukherjee further submits that there is no scope to come to the conclusion that the land in question is in commercial zone and there is also no scope under the regulations issued by the respondents themselves to convert an industrial land into a commercial land. The learned Advocate of the petitioner also submitted that the classification of land under 1992 Schedule is only applicable in respect of vacant land and not otherwise. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners submits that there cannot be any forfeiture of tenancy after payment of rent till the current period. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that the respondents herein have received the rent and issued documentary evidence in acknowledgment of the acceptance thereof till September, 2005 i.e. after institution of this writ petition.;