Calcutta High Court
Qamar Alam vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 January, 2025
Author: Jay Sengupta
Bench: Jay Sengupta
OD-1
ORDER SHEET
WPO/22/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
QAMAR ALAM
VS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA
Date : 20th January, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. SSG. Hasnain, Adv.
Mr. Amritam Mondal, Adv.
Mr. Avirup Mondal, Adv.
Ms. Shahnaz Parveen, dv.
Mr. Debdipta Sen, Adv.
...for the petitioner
Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Amrita Pandey, Adv.
...for the UOI
The Court: Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits as follows. The petitioner received a notice on 7th January, 2025
from one Jaydeep Sil, Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property for
Government of India, in terms of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971 alleging that there was an unauthorised
construction done by the petitioner on the said property. Later on, a second
notice was issued by one Dr. Bappaditya Dutta, Deputy Secretary to the
Government of India, alleging that steps would be taken against the
petitioner under the same Act for non-payment of rent as also for
unauthorised construction. These notices were duly responded to. Yet, the
said Jaydeep Sil, as the Estate Officer of Enemy Property, issued an order
dated 19th September, 2024 in terms of the said Act by clubbing the two
2
issues together and directing the petitioner to pay and vacate the property,
failing which the Office of the Custodian of Enemy Property would demolish
the unauthorised construction in question. Thereafter, on 7 th January,
2024, the second person who issued a notice, namely, Dr. Bappaditya
Dutta, passed an order on 7th January, 2024 in terms of the said Act
granting final opportunity to the petitioner to rectify his actions and comply
within ten days from the receipt of such notice, failing which appropriate
steps would be taken. First, there can be only one Estate Officer for a
particular property. Here, it appears, two persons have presented
themselves as Estate Officer at different points of time. Secondly, the two
issues could not have been clubbed either. The petitioner wants to move the
Appellate Court, but with some protection. However, in the event the
respondent authorities insist that this matter may be heard first, then an
interim order of stay may be granted. Here, there is a question of
jurisdictional error, among other things. Incidentally, the petitioner has
been paying all dues at the old rate and has sufficient documents to show it.
Learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents denies the
allegations and submits as follows. The Estate Officer acted bona fide in
terms of the notification of the Government. However, the petitioner has not
paid the dues even as per the old rates and they cannot be allowed to enjoy
Government property without paying their dues. Furthermore, the
petitioner had also admitted that they would clear the necessary dues.
Let a report be filed in the form of an affidavit in this regard within
two weeks from date by the concerned Estate Officer. Exception, if any, may
be taken within a week therefrom.
3
The points taken up by the petitioner including the jurisdictional
issue warrant consideration, but the petitioner is faced with an imminent
eviction.
Therefore, the impugned notice dated 7th January, 2025 shall remain
stayed for four weeks.
List this matter under the heading “Court Application” after three
weeks.
Parties shall act on a server copy downloaded from the official website
of this Court.
(JAY SENGUPTA, J.)
sg.
[ad_1]
Source link