DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) Three writ petitions have been taken up for final hearing as they involve similar issues.
(2.) The issue that has fallen for consideration in these three writ petitions is whether the respondent authorities can charge compensation in terms of Clause 6.2.2.2(e) and Clause 6.2.2.3(g) of the Land Policy Guidelines, 2010 and TAMP Order No. TAMP/18/2011-Gen. dated July 26, 2011 or not. W.P. No. 771 of 2012 is at the behest of the Cossipore Commercial Society and others. For the sake of convenience, the writ petitioners in such writ petition are referred to as the Cossipore Commercial Society. Learned Advocate appearing for Cossipore Commercial Society has submitted that, Kolkata Port Trust (KoPT) had offered lease in respect of two adjoining plots for a period of 20 years with effect from September 24, 1990 to Cossipore Commercial Society on September 21, 1990. KoPT had handed over possession in respect of the first plot on November 17, 1990 and the second plot on January 4, 1991. KoPT authorities however did not execute any formal lease deed except issuing a letter dated September 21, 1990 of the Land Manager, KoPT which is at page 58 of the writ petition. According to him, Cossipore Commercial Society and KoPT proceeded on the basis of the relationship created by the letter of the Land Manager of KoPT dated September 21, 1990. Cossipore Commercial Society had applied for renewal of the lease before its expiry. KoPT did not respond to such application. KoPT had raised bills on the basis of the schedule of rent, on Cossipore Commercial Society from time to time. The rent was increased from time to time by KoPT. Cossipore Commercial Society paid such rent. On and from June 2012, KoPT started charging compensation charges on Cossipore Commercial Society on the basis of Clause 6.2.2.2(e) and Clause 6.2.2.3(g) of the Land Policy Guidelines, 2012 and TAMP Order No. TAMP/18/2011-Gen. dated July 26, 2011. Learned Advocate appearing for Cossipore Commercial Society has submitted that, KoPT authorities are not entitled to charge compensation charges on the rent bill of the petitioner. Cossipore Commercial Society should be treated as a monthly tenant with no formal lease of deed being executed. Such tenancy not being terminated in accordance with law, Cossipore Commercial Society cannot be treated as an unauthorised occupant. The question of attraction of the Land Policy Guidelines, 2012 and the TAMP Order dated July 26, 2011 in such facts scenario does not arise. The claim for compensation charges raised by KoPT has no foundational basis. Such component of the bills should be quashed. Learned Advocate appearing for Cossipore Commercial Society has submitted that, Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that a lease for one year and above is compulsorily registrable. He has referred to Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 in such aspect. According to him, since no formal deed was either executed or registered, the relationship between the Cossipore Commercial Society and KoPT has to be treated on the basis of the letter dated September 21, 1990 which is at page 58 of the writ petition. He has relied upon All India Reporter 1980 Supreme Court page 226 (Biswabani Pvt. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Dutta & Ors.) and submitted that, an unregistered lease deed for a period of one year and above allows an inference that, there is a tenancy on month to month basis. Relying upon All India Reporter 1990 Calcutta page 135 (Pieco Electronics and Electricals Ltd. v. Smt. Tribeni Devi) and he has submitted that, no ejectment can be made on the basis of the determination clause in an unregistered deed. KoPT authorities despite the interim order passed by the High Court, did not initiate any eviction proceedings under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. Therefore, Cossipore Commercial Society cannot be treated as an unauthorised occupant in respect of any of the two plots of land in question. He has referred to the interim order dated December 6, 2012 passed by the High Court in this regard and submitted that, Cossipore Commercial Society is paying KoPT in accordance with the interim order.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for Cossipore Commercial Society has submitted that, the relationship between the parties at the time of entering into the contract was that of a lessor and a lessee and that the same was guided by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The rate of rent is guided by the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. The scale of rent to be charged by KoPT is as fixed by the Tariff Authority of Major Ports (TAMP) published under Section 49 read with Section 50C of the Major Port Trust Act, 1962. Land policy is not a fixation of land by TAMP under Section 49 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. Therefore, charging compensation under Clause 6.2.2.2(e) and Clause 6.2.2.3(g) of the Land Policy Guidelines, 2012 does not arise. Land policy cannot be resorted to in levying charges which are not fixed and published under Section 49 read with Section 50C of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. Assuming that, the land policy as applicable then also, the two clauses would not apply as, in the facts of the present case, there is yet to be any expiry/termination/determination of the relationship. Cossipore Commercial Society continues to be a monthly tenant without such tenancy being determined in accordance with law. W.P. No. 871 of 2012 and W.P. No. 914 of 2012 are collectively referred to as the Krishna Mineral Industries for the sake of convenience. Learned Advocate appearing for Krishna Mineral Industries has submitted that, KoPT offered lease of plots, at Cossipore River Front, for a period of 20 years to the petitioners. After handing over possession, a survey was conducted where it appeared that, KoPT made over possession of land in slightly less than the offered area. After such measurement, KoPT started raising bills on Krishna Mineral Industries on the basis of the actual measurement. No formal lease deed was executed between the parties. The parties proceeded on the basis of the relationship created by the letter dated January 10, 1991 issued by the Land Manager of KoPT. During the subsistence of the tenancy, an eviction notice dated April 19, 2005 was issued to Krishna Mineral Industries. An eviction proceeding was initiated before the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer disposed of such proceedings holding that as no dues were payable by Krishna Mineral Industries to KoPT and since Krishna Mineral Industries did not part with possession, the proceedings are not maintainable. Even after expiry of 20 years from the letter dated January 10, 1991, KoPT did not determine the tenancy of Krishna Mineral Industries.;