Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - (1.) When this writ petition is called on, Mr. Sukumar Mukherjee, the writ petitioner, appears in person. The affidavit of service has been affirmed on March 18, 2015 which shows prior service of a copy of the writ petition was effected on the learned Government Pleader on February 19, 2015; the affidavit of service also shows that copies of writ petition along with the forwarding letter were sent for service on the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 by speed post with acknowledgement due. In addition, the track report in the affidavit of service shows delivery of such forwarding letter and copies of the writ petition on the respondents. Let the affidavit of service be kept on record.
(2.) Briefly stated the case of the writ petitioner is as follows. He is in possession of around 59 sq.metres at Plot No.23 in LIG Category in Block-EF at East Calcutta Area Development Project, Phase-I in the district South 24- Parganas at premium of Rs.27,057/- for the period of 99 years as stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. He applied for allotment of such a plot of land and was successful in the lottery. Accordingly allotment was done in respect of the said plot in his favour. This appears from Annexure P2 to the writ petition (memo dated November 23, 1994). By an agreement dated September 4, 1995 the petitioner was given the right to use and occupy the said land by the respondent no. 2 - Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA). The petitioner points out that the petitioner was under the impression that he was to pay consideration, but the agreement provided for paying premium for the same amount. The petitioner has made out the case that he has paid the instalments from time to time which the KMDA accepted and duly handed over possession of the said land in consequence thereof to the petitioner; Annexure P5 to the writ petition is the possession certificate, Annexure P4 is the agreement and the petitioner has also enclosed as Annexure P6, copies of the receipts for payment of municipal tax at pages 42-43 of the writ petition which demonstrate that the writ petitioner, care of Managing Director of West Bengal Forest Development Corporation Limited is being shown as the assessee of the said land. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the writ petitioner is telling the truth when he says that mutation has been effected in his favour in respect of the said land.
(3.) Unfortunately, as stated in paragraph 10 of the writ petition, the petitioner committed default in payment of some instalments. The petitioner says that this was because of his personal illness. He further says that no notice that was issued to him cancelling the agreement or giving him any notice of breach for which the respondent no.2 would be entitled to exercise the right of reentry.;