ALLAHABAD BANK versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 20-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

r-
ALLAHABAD BANK 
A 
v. 
ST ATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 20, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Urban Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976-ss.19(2), 20-Permission to 
sell land rejected by competent authority on the premise that same was vested 
with Government-Writ Petition rejected on the ground of delay-Plea that c 
issue was not examined in the light of ss. 19(2) proviso and 20-Held, 
impugned order shows that High Court had not examined that aspect-
Matter remitted to High Court. 
The Appell/nt Bank entered into an agreement with respondent nos. 4 
& 5 in the year 1990 for purchase of land and building. The possession of D 
~ 
the property was handed over to the appellant bank. Another agreement was 
entered into whereby respondent no. 5 was appointed as contractor to construct 
,.> 
a multi-storied building of 29 residential flats. The building was constructed 
in terms of the plan and the possession was given to the Bank in 1992. All 
the flats were allotted and were in occupation of the allottees. When the 
E 
construction was going on, the appellant-Bank s_ent a draft copy of the sale 
deed to respondent no.4 for finalization and for execution and registration of 
sale deed. There was no response to the request made by the appellant-Bank. 
The prayer for permission to sell was rejected by the Competent 
-t 
Authority under the Urban Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976. Appellate F 
Authority dismissed the appeal holding that the property in question vested 
with the Government and was in fact the excess land of the owners. However, 
liberty was granted to the appellant to move the State Government for seeking 
exemption. 
The State Government was moved but no action was taken on the G 
•'· 
applications. The appellant filed writ petition before the High Court which 
summarily rejected it on the ground that it was filed after seven years. 
In appeal to this court, the appellant contended with reference to Section 
913 
H 
A 
B 
c 
914 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 
19(2) (proviso) and Section 20 of the Act that they are intended to take care 
-l 
of the situation as involved in the present case. 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the 
Court 
Held: It is not really necessary to examine whether Sections 9 and 20 
of the Ceiling Act have any application to the present case. The impugned 
order shows that the High Court has not examined that aspect. Hence matter 
remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. [Para 8) 
(916-H; 917-A) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 862 of2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.9.2003 of the High Court 
of Calcutta in C.O. No. 1820/2003. 
D 
K.K. Venugopal, C. Mukund, Ashok Jain, Pankaj Jain and Bijoy Kumar 
E 
F 
Jain for the Appellant. 
Avijit Bhattacharjee and Saumya Kundu for the Respondents. 
The. Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench 
of the Calcutta High Court summarily dismissing the writ petition filed by the 
appellant on the ground that it was highly belated. 
3. A brief reference to the background facts as projected by appellant 
would be necessary. 
4. Appellant-Bank entered into an agreement with respondent Nos. 4 
and 5 in the year 1990 for purchase of land and building situated at No. I 
G Fakirpara Road, Calcutta. The consideration was fixed at Rs.20 lacs. Out of 
the said amount Rs.19,00,000/- was paid to the vendors-respondent Nos. 4-
5. The possession of the property was handed over to the appellant-Bank 
with the right to demolish the existing structures and to construct building 
thereon. Another agreement was entered into on 12.11.1990. By this agreement 
H respondent No.5 was appointed as contractor/developer to construct a multi-
ALLAHABAD BANK v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [PASAYAT, J.] 915 
,., 
)-
storied building of 29 residential flats at the property in question. The said A 
flats were constructed by spending more than rupees one crore six lacs. The 
building was constructed in terms of the plan sanctioned by Calcutta Municipal 
Corporation and possession was given to the Bank in 1992. All the flats were 
allotted and are in occupation of the allottees. When the constructions were 
going on, the appellant-Bank sent a draft copy of the sale deed to respondent B 
No. 4 for finalisation and for execution and registration of the sale de
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.