CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION v. THE SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT & Ors.

learned counsel. 2

2. Supplementary affidavit as filed today on behalf of the writ petitioner is taken on record.

3. At the very outset Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submits before this Court that pursuant to previous order dated 22.5.2026 the writ petitioner approached the respondent Port Authority with the cheque of Rs.20,00,000/- at a belated stage for some unavoidable circumstances, however, the respondent Port Authority for the reasons best known to them has not encashed the said cheque. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that there was, thus, sufficient compliance of the order dated 22.05.2026 and, thus, the interim protection as passed on 22.05.2026 may be extended further, preferably till disposal of the instant writ petition.

4. Such prayer is vehemently opposed by Mr. Nag, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Port Authority.

5. On consent of both parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for hearing.

6. The subject-matter of the instant writ petition is the notice dated 16.04.2026 allegedly affixed on the premises of the writ 3 petitioner, a copy of which has been annexed at page 101 of the instant writ petition. The said notice reads as under:- “ESTATE OFFICER, SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT KOLKATA (Appointed under Section 3 of Act 40 of 1971-Central Act) Public Occupants), Act, 1971 of Unauthorised Premises (Eviction 6, Fairlie Place, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700001 In terms of the Final Order of Eviction dated 13.06.2001 delivered by the Ld. Estate officer in proceeding No.400 of 2001 : Board of Trustees of the Port of Kolkata vs. Dwarka Prosad Agarwalla, possession of the subject public premises situated at Ramkrishtopur, Howrah has been taken over by the Authorised Officer. (Manish Kumar) Authorised Officer Appointed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971)”

7. At the time of hearing Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset took me to page no.53 of the instant writ petition, being Annexure P-5, being a copy of the order passed by the Estate Officer/respondent no.3 authority in a proceeding of eviction the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short “ the Act of 1971”). It is 4 submitted that from the order no.7 dated 13.06.2001 it would appear that the respondent no.3 in the said eviction proceeding noticed that the opposite party/lessee therein had violated the conditions of the grant of tenancy and, accordingly, drew up formal order of eviction under Section 5 of the Act of 1971 against the said opposite party. It is submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that from the later portion of the said final order dated 13.06.2001 it would reveal further that the present writ petitioner, being the occupier of the premises in question, participated in the said eviction proceeding before the respondent no.3 authority, who considering the precarious condition of the present writ petitioner and they permitted the present writ petitioner to approach the Land Manager/the respondent no.4 authority for grant of direct tenancy.

8. It is further submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that soon thereafter the writ petitioner approached the respondent no.4 authority, who issued the letter of proposal dated 27.03.2002 as would be evident from Annexure P8 at page no.64 of the instant writ petition. It is argued by Mr. Chakraborty that on all a sudden on 27.03.2002 the respondent no.4 authority by 5 issuing a notice asked the writ petitioner to convey his acceptance of offer to the letter dated 27.03.2002 and soon thereafter the respondent Port Authority without considering the replies of the writ petitioner as given on 23.04.2003 and

14.05.2003 most unlawfully took possession of the property in question by issuing the impugned notice. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that the action of the respondent authorities is de-hors to the law.

9. It is further submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that prior to taking possession of the property in question wherein the writ petitioner was in settled possession, the respondent authorities most unlawfully sealed the property in question without adhering the provisions of the Act of 1971.

10. It is, thus submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that it is a fit case for grant of relief/reliefs to the petitioner in terms of the prayers of the instant writ petition.

11. Per contra, Mr. Nag, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner also took me to the final order dated 13.06.2001 as passed by the respondent no.3 authority. It is submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that considering the predicament of the writ petitioner the respondent authority, 6 being the Estate Officer, in an eviction proceeding against a against recorded lessee permitted the present writ petitioner to approach the respondent no.4 authority for grant of direct tenancy.

12. It is further submitted by Mr. Nag that on such approach of the petitioner the respondent Port Authority, more specifically the respondent no.4 authority, issued a letter of proposal of grant of lease dated 27.03.2002 as would be evident from page nos.64-66 of the instant writ petition. It is argued by Mr. Nag that from paragraph 3 of the notice dated 27.03.2002 it would reveal that the respondent no.4 authority while granting such notice of proposal categorically communicated that in the event the conditions of grant of lease including the schedule of payment and quantum mentioned therein are not accepted by the writ petitioner, then the said offer letter granting lease would be treated closed, cancelled and withdrawn.

13. It is submitted by Mr. Nag that on perusal of several copies of communications, which have been annexed with the instant writ petition, it would reveal that the writ petitioner has miserably failed to comply with the request made in the 7 offer letter dated 27.03.2002 and thus there cannot be any occasion to impugne the notice as appearing in page no.101 of the instant writ petition whereby and whereunder the eviction order has been executed.

14. This Court has given due consideration over the submissions of the learned advocates for the contending parties. This Court has meticulously has gone into the entire materials as placed before this Court.

15. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court it would reveal that the respondent no.3 authority in accordance with law initiated an eviction proceeding against the recorded lessee. In the said eviction proceeding on account of violation of the fundamental conditions of grant of tenancy and thereafter drew up formal order of eviction. It further appears that the writ petitioner participated in the said eviction proceeding. However, the present writ petitioner failed to substantiate his independent right, title and interest before the Estate Officer in respect of the suit property and even then the Estate Officer considering the stand of the present writ petitioner granted liberty to the present writ 8 petitioner to approach the respondent no.4 authority for grant of direct tenancy to him.

16. Materials have been placed before this Court that such approach has been made and soon thereafter the respondent no.4 authority issued the offer letter dated 27.03.2002 to the writ petitioner subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.

17. Admittedly, those conditions have not been complied with by the present writ petitioner. On the contrary he has approached the respondent no.4 authority for relaxation of such conditions by issuing two letters dated 23.04.2003 and

14.05.2003. In the facts and circumstances, it thus appears before this Court that when the present writ petitioner participated in the eviction proceeding as initiated by the respondent no.3 authority under the Act of 1971 and obtained liberty to approach the respondent no.4 authority for grant of direct tenancy, in considered view of this Court the writ petitioner cannot challenge the impugned notice, which is practically an order of execution in terms of the final order as passed by the respondent no.3 authority.

18. This Court, thus, finds that the action of the respondent no.4 authority while issuing the impugned notice, a copy of 9 which has been annexed at page no.101 of the instant writ petition, is perfectly justified and in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1971.

19. With the aforementioned observations, this writ petitions is, thus, dismissed. However, this Court while dismissing the instant writ petition directs the respondent no.4 authority to treat the letters dated 23.04.2003 and 14.05.2003 as representations of the writ petitioner and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and/or his legal representative shall pass a reasoned order and shall forthwith communicate the same to the writ petitioner preferably within thirty (30) working days from the date of communication of a server copy of this order.

20. The learned advocate-on-record for the respondent Port Authority is hereby requested to communicate the server copy of this order to the respondent no.4 authority, who is directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order.

21. With the dismissal of the instant writ petition, the interim order as passed on 22.05.2026 stands hereby vacated. 10

22. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities. (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.) RP(AR.CT.)