- (1.) THE appellant was a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It was dealing with business of land development. In 1976 the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act came in force and under the provisions of the said Act of 1976 the owner was to submit return of the excess land beyond the ceiling limit fixed under the said Act of 1976. Accordingly, the appellant submitted return. They also prayed for retention of surplus land in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 1976. The authority under the said Act of 1976 rejected the application of the appellant and passed an order of vesting in respect of the excess land. The order of the competent authority rejecting the application of the appellant became the subject-matter of the writ proceeding. In the writ proceeding the appellant challenged the order of rejection, as according to them, they were entitled to an order of retention as prayed for in their application made before the authority.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the proceeding out of thirty-five bighas nine chittacks fourteen square feet land involved herein, twenty-two bighas eight cottahs of land was acquired by the State for the purpose of constructing housing complex for Calcutta Metropolitan Development as also for the purpose of constructing Link Road by widening Prince Anwar Shah Road. The balance thirteen bighas of land was under occupation of various refugee families displaced from East Pakistan. The acquisition proceedings were also under challenge in separate writ proceedings initiated by the appellant. The appellant was not successful in resisting the acquisition. The Court however, directed adequate compensation to be paid to them. Accordingly, the appellant received compensation for twenty-one bighas eight cottahs of land and for the rest acquired lana litigation is pending in this Court with regard to compensation. For the other part of the land admittedly, the appellant was out of possession for a long time.
(3.) CONSIDERING the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is clear that the appellant was not in a position to hand over back thirty-five bighas nine chittacks fourteen sq. ft. land covered by the order of vesting passed by the competent authority under the said Act of 1976.;