SHRACHI BURDWAN DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. v. ABDUL ALIM & Ors.

petition challenged in the petition are null and void in the eyes of law, in view of non-joinder of necessary party. The SLP was filed against such common Judgement and order dated 26.2.2020 and it was dismissed and confirmed the judgement and order of the Learned Division of the High Court in FMA887/2019 and set aside the order of Learned Single Bench passed in CO 1232 of 2018 and directed the Executing court to proceed with the execution process. A contempt petition was filed by the present respondent no.1 against the collector / DM in L.A case no. 21 of 2010 for non-compliance of the Executing Court’s order dated 29.8.2018 and 12.9.2018 and the Rule was issued on 13.5.2025. Shrachi Bardhaman preferred SLP challenging the Rule issued by the learned contempt court, which was disposed of on 16.5.2025, directing Shrachi Burdwan to move before High Court without interference to the order impugned.

#8. On 21.5.2025, High Court discharged the Rule issued against the collector in the contempt proceeding upon deposit of the decretal amount of Rs.₹2, 70, 80, 540/- before the executing court and after seeking unconditional apology by the contemnor. The state of West Bengal through the Special Land Acquisition Officer conveyed it’s no objection to the learned Contempt court and also to the petitioner and decree holder by a letter dated 20.5.2025. In that case the decree holders were allowed to withdraw the deposited amount. An objection was then raised by Shrachi Burdwan under Section 47 of C.P.C being Misc case no. 60 of 2023 against the executability of the decree in M.Execution case no. 12 of 2012, impleading only one Awardee namely Abdul Aleem that is petitioner no.2. The learned Executing court meantime permitted the decree holders on 30.7.2025 to withdraw the deposited decretal amount and BDA did not raise any objection. The decretal amount has been presently handed over and deposited to bank account of the respective respondents which has been duly acknowledged. The petitioner challenged the orders passed in the Misc. case filed under section 47 of the code of civil procedure and also against the order of dismisiing the application under Section 47 CPC.

#9. Under the above factual score, the argument advanced by Mr. Arindam Banerjee the learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner in all the three revisional applications, are as follows; Submission made on behalf of the petitioners

#10. It is submitted that the petitioner herein being a Special Purpose Vehicle formed under PPP ( public purpose, partnership) to be constructed to be a representative of BDA, being a party to the proceeding under section 18 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894, and as such the petitioner is entitled to apply under section 47 of code of civil procedure for the decree to be declared void and inexecutable on the ground of non impleadment of Bengal Shrachi Developers Private Limited being a necessary party and “person interested” in disbursing compensation under Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned Senior advocate in this regard relied upon the decisions relied on before the learned Single Judge court in WP9778 (W) of 2012, which are as follows. Himalayan Tiles and Marble (p) Limited versus Frangis Victor Coutinho (Dead) by LRs.1, paragraph 8 and 14, Neelagangabai versus State of Karnataka2 , Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. Versus special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition.) Neyvely3, paragraph 12 to 14, Hindu Kanya Maha vidyalaya Jind vs municipal committee, Jind4, Santosh Kumar versus Central Warehousing Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 1164, and lastly Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (dead) by LRs vs state of Karnataka5.