THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. versus M/S BANALATA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 241 · Decided: 30-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
MIS BANALATA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. AND ANR. 
APRIL 30, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
~st Bengal Government Premises Tenancy Regulation Act, 1976 (Act 
of 1976)-Sections 6A, 12(2)-West Bengal (Public Land Eviction of 
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 (Act of 1962)-Stq/e Government evicted 
the respondents from the premises under the provisions of1he Act of 1976- C 
High Court held that the eviction is possible only under the provisions of the 
Act of 1962 and not under the Act of 1976-Held, the provisions of the Act 
of 1976 is applicable for eviction. 
Itespondents were in possession of disputed premises in Calcutta. D 
Appellant-State government took over possession of the premises under the 
provisions of the West Bengal Government Premises Tenancy Regulation Act, 
1976 (Act of 1976). The respondents filed Writ Petitions before High Court 
challenging the possession of the premises by the appellant as arbitrary and 
without process of law. The High Court held that the respondents were tenants 
of the owners of the premises and not of the State Government and therefore E 
the provisions of the Act of 1976 cannot be applied by the State Government 
for taking over possession of the p1·emises from the respondents. The High 
Court, however, held that the possession of the premises by the respondents 
cannot be disturbed without taking recourse to the provisions of the West 
Bengal (Public Land E\iction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 (Act of F 
1962). Hence this appeal by the State Government 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the West Bengal 
Government Premises Tenancy Regulation act, 1976 (Act of 1976), the G 
legislature has clearly laid down that the West Bengal (Public Land Eviction 
of Unauthorised Occu1>ants) Act, 1962 (Act of 1962) shall not be made 
applicable to any premises to which this Act of 1976 applies. Therefore any 
1>roceeding for eviction of unauthorised occupants of premises in question 
has to be initiated only under the Act of 1976. The judgment of the ffigh Court H 
241 
242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001) 3 S.C.R. 
A is in conflict with the express statutory provision in Section 12(2) of the Act · 
of 1976. Therefore the High Court clearly erred in holding that the proceeding 
under the Act of 1976 was not maintainable and that proceeding for eviction, 
if any, may be taken under the Act of 1962. [245-C-D] 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3426-28 
of 1995. 
From the Judbnent and Order dated 12.1. 94 of the Calcutta Bigh Court 
in F.M.A.T. Nos. 920-922of1991. 
c 
Tapas ray, Avijit Bhattacherjee, Atanu Saikia and Ms. Madhumita 
• 
Bhattacharjee for the Appellants. 
S.B. Upadhaya and Sujit K. Singh for the Respondents in C.A. No. 3427-
3428195. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BANERJEE, J. The State of West Bengal is in appeal against the 
Judgment and Order of the Calcutta High Court recording a finding that the 
~· 
dispossession of the Writ Petitioner/Respondents herein on 19th March, 1991 
E was arbitrary and without process of law. The High Court f111ther directed in 
F 
' its Order that the State authorities will not in any way disturb the possession 
of the Writ Petitioners without taking recourse to the provision of the West 
Bengal (Public Land Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Act 1962 or such 
other provision as may be available to them .. 
.G 
The contextual facts depict that the Writ Petitioners were in possession 
of three out houses in premises No. 62 Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Calcutta. The 
High Court while dealing with the facts came to the conclusion, however, that 
possessory ·right ought not to prevent the vesting of the entire property in 
the State Government and thus eame to a finding that the entire premises 
No.62. Syed Amir Ali Avenue Calcutta came to be vested on to the State 
Government on and from 5th December, 1983. The High Court's finding on 
this score remains un:challenged-as such we need not delve into its factual 
acceptability. 
. ' 
· On the further factual score, the High Court observed that whether the 
H Writ Petitioners/respondents herein can at all be said to be tenants in respect 
-" 
STATE v. BANALATA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. [BANERJEE, J.] 243 
of the premises under their occupation under heirs of S.K. Ghose, since A 
diseased or under VC. Sood as claimed by the Writ Petitioners could not be 
-~ 
of any conce

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.