CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2020) 01 CAL CK 0215

Ashok Kumar Shaw & Ors vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 9 January 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjib Banerjee, J · Kausik Chanda, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
C. Appeal From Order (FMA) No. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103 Of 2020, Tender Of Mand Appl (MAT) No. 1941, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1948, 1949, 1951, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 1,228 words

These appeals are directed against an order dated December 3, 2019 by which the challenge to a show-cause notice issued under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 has been repelled.

According to the appellants, they were inducted as sub-tenants by Bengal Properties Private Limited, the fourth respondent herein and in whose favour the then Calcutta Municipal Corporation had granted a long term lease. It is the contention of the appellants that as long as the immediate lessor of the appellants continues under the relevant lease, notwithstanding the tenure of such lease having expired by efflux of time, no steps can be taken against the appellants or against any other sub-tenants who may have been inducted by the immediate superior lessee.

The Corporation is represented and says that the original lessee has wrongfully retained possession of the leasehold premises despite the expiry of the tenure.

The Corporation says that the Corporation has obtained leave from this court to proceed against all the persons who continue to be in unauthorised occupation of any part of the premises in question. According to the Corporation, once the term of the immediate superior lessor expires, the lessees cannot assert any independent right or continue in occupation of the property in question.

It is not necessary to finally decide the question, particularly since the challenge here is only to a show-cause notice. It is elementary that a show-cause notice does not cause any prejudice by itself as the addressee is merely required to show cause why further action should not be taken against such addressee. Usually, a show-cause notice, like a first information report, is not interfered with unless it appears to be wholly without jurisdiction or utterly absurd.

Since it is possible for the writ petitioners to urge whatever grounds have been taken in the writ petition before the Collector under the said Act of 1962, the order impugned does not call for any interference. However, the next date for representation before the L.A. Collector is adjourned by a further week and the matters are directed to be taken up by the L.A. Collector on or after January 20, 2020.

FMA 82 of 2020 together with CAN 12623 of 2019, FMA 86 of 2020 together with CAN 12676 of 2019, FMA 96 of 2020 together with CAN 12659 of 2019, FMA 85 of 2020 together with CAN 12628 of 2019, FMA 84 of 2020 together with CAN 12627 of 2019, FMA 100 of 2020 together with CAN 12665 of 2019, FMA 91 of 2020 together with CAN 12637 of 2019, FMA 95 of 2020 together with CAN 12657 of 2019, FMA 88 of 2020 together with CAN 12682 of 2019, FMA 90 of 2020 together with CAN 12654 of 2019, FMA 87 of 2020 together with CAN 12669 of 2019, FMA 103 of 2020 together with CAN 12658 of 2019, FMA 99 of 2020 together with CAN 12688 of 2019, FMA 94 of 2020 together with CAN 12655 of 2019, FMA 92 of 2020 together with CAN 12671 of 2019, FMA 101 of 2020 together with CAN 12687 of 2019, FMA 83 of 2020 together with CAN 12624 of 2019, FMA 89 of 2020 together with CAN 12666 of 2019, FMA 102 of 2020 together with CAN 12661 of 2019, FMA 98 of 2020 together with CAN 12667 of 2019, FMA 93 of 2020 together with CAN 12668 of 2019 and FMA 97 of 2020 together with CAN 12634 of 2019 are disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

These appeals are directed against an order dated December 3, 2019 by which the challenge to a show-cause notice issued under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 has been repelled.

According to the appellants, they were inducted as sub-tenants by Bengal Properties Private Limited, the fourth respondent herein and in whose favour the then Calcutta Municipal Corporation had granted a long term lease. It is the contention of the appellants that as long as the immediate lessor of the appellants continues under the relevant lease, notwithstanding the tenure of such lease having expired by efflux of time, no steps can be taken against the appellants or against any other sub-tenants who may have been inducted by the immediate superior lessee.

The Corporation is represented and says that the original lessee has wrongfully retained possession of the leasehold premises despite the expiry of the tenure.

The Corporation says that the Corporation has obtained leave from this court to proceed against all the persons who continue to be in unauthorised occupation of any part of the premises in question. According to the Corporation, once the term of the immediate superior lessor expires, the lessees cannot assert any independent right or continue in occupation of the property in question.

It is not necessary to finally decide the question, particularly since the challenge here is only to a show-cause notice. It is elementary that a show-cause notice does not cause any prejudice by itself as the addressee is merely required to show cause why further action should not be taken against such addressee. Usually, a show-cause notice, like a first information report, is not interfered with unless it appears to be wholly without jurisdiction or utterly absurd.

Since it is possible for the writ petitioners to urge whatever grounds have been taken in the writ petition before the Collector under the said Act of 1962, the order impugned does not call for any interference. However, the next date for representation before the L.A. Collector is adjourned by a further week and the matters are directed to be taken up by the L.A. Collector on or after January 20, 2020.

FMA 82 of 2020 together with CAN 12623 of 2019, FMA 86 of 2020 together with CAN 12676 of 2019, FMA 96 of 2020 together with CAN 12659 of 2019, FMA 85 of 2020 together with CAN 12628 of 2019, FMA 84 of 2020 together with CAN 12627 of 2019, FMA 100 of 2020 together with CAN 12665 of 2019, FMA 91 of 2020 together with CAN 12637 of 2019, FMA 95 of 2020 together with CAN 12657 of 2019, FMA 88 of 2020 together with CAN 12682 of 2019, FMA 90 of 2020 together with CAN 12654 of 2019, FMA 87 of 2020 together with CAN 12669 of 2019, FMA 103 of 2020 together with CAN 12658 of 2019, FMA 99 of 2020 together with CAN 12688 of 2019, FMA 94 of 2020 together with CAN 12655 of 2019, FMA 92 of 2020 together with CAN 12671 of 2019, FMA 101 of 2020 together with CAN 12687 of 2019, FMA 83 of 2020 together with CAN 12624 of 2019, FMA 89 of 2020 together with CAN 12666 of 2019, FMA 102 of 2020 together with CAN 12661 of 2019, FMA 98 of 2020 together with CAN 12667 of 2019, FMA 93 of 2020 together with CAN 12668 of 2019 and FMA 97 of 2020 together with CAN 12634 of 2019 are disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.