AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In Re: CAN 5492 of 2017
Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today on behalf of the applicant/appellant indicating effective service of notice upon the respondents including the private respondents be taken on record.
After considering the submission made by the learned advocate for the appellant/applicant and upon perusing the instant application, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown to explain the delay in filing of the appeal and as such, the delay is condoned.
The application for condonation of delay, being CAN 5492 of 2017, is accordingly allowed.
In Re: CAN 5502 of 2017
This is an application seeking leave to appeal taken out by one Dilip Mehena in respect of an order dated 28th June, 2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. 12204 (W) of 2012 ( Ajoy Kumar Mondal & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors .).
Admittedly, the applicant is a third party seeking to assert his right consequent upon the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rampurhat, Birbhum, in terms of his memo dated 31st March, 2017.
The subject matter of controversy surrounding the instant matter was carried right upto the Supreme Court by Paschim Banga Rajya Bhumijibi Sangha & another in SLP (Civil) No.1416 of 1997. The Supreme Court by an order dated 24th November, 2003, had directed the authorities of the State to ensure that no third party interests were created or such third parties be inducted or allowed to enter upon and squat on the properties pending disposal of the appeals notwithstanding the vesting orders that may be passed and mutation that may be effected. For implementation of the said order of the Supreme Court, Ajoy Kumar Mandal and another, being the writ petitioners in W. P. 12204 (W) of 2012, filed the writ petition, which ultimately resulted in the impugned order dated 28th June, 2012.
During the course of argument, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has referred to a subsequent order passed by the Supreme Court on 12th December, 2005, in the same SLP, where a direction was issued upon the respondents not to take any coercive steps. According to learned advocate for the applicant, the concerned authority of the State by issuing the order dated 31st March, 2017, has proceeded to take coercive steps against his client.
We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the issue as sought to be raised by the applicant cannot be a subject matter in the appeal preferred by the applicant against the judgment and order dated 28th June, 2012. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the direction of the learned Single Judge upon the District Magistrate, Birbhum and the Superintendent of Police, Birbhum, was merely following the order of the Supreme Court dated 24th November, 2003. Admittedly, the applicant is not a party in the proceeding pending before the Supreme Court. As such, there is no scope to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 28th June, 2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. 12204 (W) of 2012.
In such circumstances, the application for leave to appeal along with the application for stay and the appeal are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.