AMITAVA LALA, J. - (1.) In this writ petition the petitioners wanted to get an order of cancellation of the decision of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in treating the portion of the land of the petitioners at 11/3A, Old Ballygunge Second Lane, Calcutta as under read alignment. A site plan and location plan as annexed to the writ petition are giving an idea what type of road alignment is there. The petitioners have obtained an interim order from a bench of this court subject to the result of the writ petition. This is the final hearing of such writ petition under the 'old matters' or 'old adjourned matters'. The real import of the argument of the petitioners is that there cannot be perpetual road alignment in respect of portion of a land. A decision has to be taken within the reasonable period of any Road Alignment Scheme and/or issuance of notice otherwise such Scheme of alignment has to be rendered infrucluous. By the passage of time valuable 27 years have been elapsed. In view of the several constructions in or around land in question virtually such Scheme of Alignment becomes ineffective.
(2.) From the submissions of the petitioners it transpires that petitioner no. 1 is the owner of the land and/or premises. The petitioners applied for no objection certificate to the appropriate authority of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation for constructing house in the land. It was observed by the appropriate authority of the Corporation that a portion of the land is affected by Road Alignment Scheme dated 27th May, 1976. This writ petition was moved and an interim order was obtained from a bench of this court on 22nd September, 1995 to the extent that during the pendency of the writ, the respondents and their officers will be free, if they feel fit, not merely to consider the resubmitted plan but even sanction it and permit the building to commence during the pendency of (his proceeding. On 30th April, 1996 in a contempt proceeding arising out of alleged non-compliance of the order passed earlier, a further direction was given by such bench to accept the plan and consideration thereof in terms of the earlier order. However, an appeal was preferred from the original order. The order was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court. On 2nd July, 1996 the appeal Court observed that the Trial Judge directed the authority to consider the plan in accordance with law but without taking into consideration of the road alignment. therefore, the hearing of the appeal was expedited. Reconsideration of the plan is without prejudice to the rights and contentions in this appeal and any action taken pursuant to the learned Trial Judges order shall abide by this order of this Court. On 23rd June, 1999 a Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of the learned Trial Judge. The reasons behind passing such order is for the direction to consider the resubmitted plan was given without calling affidavits from the respondents. However, the matter was sent back to the learned Trial Judge for reconsideration of the matter on the basis of the affidavits to be filed by the parties and all the relevant factors and the law on the subject. It has been further stated that on 24th April, 2002 an application was made by the petitioners under Rule 25 of the Building Rules, 1990 for sanctioning certain internal changes made from the original sanctioned plan being B. P. No. 96 dated 24th July, 1997. According to the petitioners, necessary fee to the tune of Rs. 18, 214/- was also paid by the petitioners which will be reflected from the annexure to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioners i.e. photo copy of the Party's Copy issued by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, Building Department Borough. The petitioners wanted to develop the case by saying that when requisition was made for internal changes and received in 2002 on the basis of sanctioned plan dated 24th July, 1997, there can not be any dispute in respect of sanction of the plan. However, such contentions were disputed by the Corporation. Petitioners contended that after construction of so many buildings in or around the land and/or premises in question and in respect dotted portion of the map being alleged alignment scheme, an impossible situation arose. There is no scope to restore back the land under proposed alignment scheme after so many years by demolishing the respective houses. Therefore, why the petitioners will suffer? Upon relying on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1991 Cal. 282 (Ratan Chand Burman & Anr. vs. The Chairman, Calcutta Improvement Trust & Ors.) they contended that the unexplained and inordinate delay is a relevant, if not a conclusive, factor in determining the colourable exercise of power in the context of land acquisition proceedings. It is true that generally, acquisition proceedings are initiated for public purpose and necessarily in the public interest. It is a fact that the governmental machinery lacks speed because of various justified and unjustified constrains. But the individual interest of the citizen cannot be altogether ignored. If the Government freezes the property of a citizen for 26 years and even then it is uncertain how it proposes to achieve the public purpose. Any further continuance of such acquisition proceedings must be held to be unfair and arbitrary. The principle that weightage should given to public interest can be recognised. But weightage should not be given which would make it oppressive vis-a-vis individual right of citizen to freely deal with the property.
(3.) In the instant case, there was a resolution of Calcutta Improvement Trust to the effect that the street scheme in question was non- remunerative and they had no funds to execute the scheme and thus the acquisition proceedings had become non-est and/or instructions and as such could not continue any further.;