Calcutta High Court
Aveek Majumder vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 August, 2025
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
2025:CHC-OS:141-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
AN APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APOT/279/2024
IA No.GA/2/2024
AVEEK MAJUMDER
-VERSUS -
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
-And-
The Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas
For the Appellant : Mr. Parashar Baidya, Adv.
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Adv.
For the KMDA : Mr. Naba Kumar Das, Adv.
Mr. Diana Ghosh Dastidar, Adv.
Mr. Parvez Mallick, Adv.
For the Respondent No.6 : Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abirlal Chakraborti, Adv.
Mr. Tuhin Subhra Patra, Adv.
HEARD ON : 05.08.2025 DELIVERED ON : 05.08.2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1. Appeal is at the behest of the writ petitioner and directed against the order
dated April 25, 2024 passed in WPO/219/2024.
2. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge, after noticing that there
were allegation of unauthorized occupation in respect of a public premises
2
2025:CHC-OS:141-DB
held that, within the contemplation of the West Bengal Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, there is no scope of a
third person instigating a proceeding to be initiated under the Act of 1971.
In such circumstances, learned Single Judge held that there was no scope
for intervention in the writ petition and, therefore, proceeded to dismiss
the writ petition.
3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, appellant is
the grandson of the original allottee in respect of flat no.18, lying and
situated on the 2nd floor, Block-D, CIT Building, 31, Madan Chatterjee
Lane, Kolkata- 700 007.
4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, such flat is
presently being occupied by the private respondent illegally and
unauthorisedly. He submits that, the appellant is entitled to actual
physical possession of such flat by evicting the private respondent who is
in unauthorised occupation. Consequently he approached the authorities
for eviction and possession of such flat. However, the authorities did not
act in terms of such request and, therefore, the appellant approached the
High Court.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for the Kolkata Metropolitan Development
Authority (KMDA), on the basis of instructions submits that, on
inspection, they found the private respondent no.6 in the appeal to be in
occupation along with others. He submits that, the flat in question is
governed under the provisions of the Act of 1971. A tenancy agreement
was executed on May 20, 1957 between KMDA and the original allotee
3
2025:CHC-OS:141-DB
who expired on November 23, 1987. Thereafter, there was an application
filed by one of the heirs and legal representatives of the original allottee for
lease of such flat. No lease was granted.
6. Learned Advocate for the KMDA submits, on instructions that, KMDA
came to learn there was an agreement between one Sujit Sengupta and
the respondent no.6 with regard to the flat in question. He submits, the
flat being in unauthorized occupation and Act of 1971 being attracted
thereto, KMDA authorities will take appropriate steps.
7. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.6 submits that, the
respondent no.6 entered into an agreement with Mr. Sujit Sengupta and
paid Rs.25 lakhs in respect of the flat. He submits that, the agreement
between the respondent no.6 and Mr. Sujit Sengupta is that once Mr.
Sujit Sengupta obtained the lease, the same will be transferred in favour
of his client. He draws the attention of the Court to order No.2 dated
December 6, 2019 passed in Title Suit No.1724 of 2019 by the learned
City Civil Court at Kolkata.
8. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.6 submits that, the
appellant does not possess any right, title and interest in respect of the
flat in question since the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased
original allottee, namely, Mr. Prafulla Sengupta relinquished all right, title
and interest in respect of such flat. He points out his client is in
possession of the flat in question pursuant to a possession certificate
issued by Mr. Sujit Sengupta.
9. Some of facts are admitted between the parties. The admitted facts are:
4
2025:CHC-OS:141-DB
i. Property in question belongs to KMDA and is governed by theprovisions of Act, 1971.
ii. The original allottee in respect of such property is Mr. Prafulla
Sengupta who expired on November 23, 1987.
iii. One of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased original
allottee applied for execution of a lease deed on June 23, 2014
which was not granted.
iv. The respondent no.6 claims right, title and interest in respect of
the flat in question through Mr. Sujit Sengupta who is one of the
heirs and legal representatives of original allottee Mr. Prafulla
Sengupta.
v. There is a civil suit pending in which the order dated December 2,
2019 was passed.
vi. The appellant was impleaded as a party defendant in Title Suit
No.1724 of 2019 subsequent to the death of his mother.
vii. KMDA is a proforma defendant in such civil suit.
viii. Deceased original allottee and the respondent no.6 are not related
to each other.
10. Apparently one of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased
original allottee sought to transfer an immovable property governed under
the Act of 1971, to the respondent no.6 herein. KMDA did not authorise
such transfer. Mr. Sujit Sengupta from whom the respondent no.6 claims
to derive title to the flat in question, did not himself possess any title to
transfer. Right to occupy the property governed by the Act of 1971 cannot
5
2025:CHC-OS:141-DB
be transferred. There is no document on record to establish any right,
title and interest of the respondent no.6 in respect of the flat in question.
The alleged transaction between the respondent no.6 and Mr. Sujit
Sengupta does not bind KMDA.
11. In the view of KMDA the respondent no.6 and the person in occupation of
such flat are unauthorised occupants within the meaning of the Act of
1971. No other view is possible in the facts and circumstances of the
present case than the one taken by KMDA. In any event the same is a
plausible view which KMDA is entitled to take.
12. Under such circumstances, KMDA will initiate proceedings under the Act
of 1971 immediately and will endeavour to conclude such proceedings
within three months from date.
13. Interim order passed in Title Suit No.1724 of 2019 is ad interim in nature.
It does not prevent the KMDA authorities from invoking the Act of 1971.
Moreover, there cannot be any restraint on the actual owner of the
property to remove trespassers or unauthorised occupants from its
property. More so when the property in question is governed by the Act of
1971.
14. With the aforesaid observation, APOT/279/2024 along with all connected
applications are disposed of without any order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
15. I agree.
(PRASENJIT BISWAS, J.)
A/s.