2016 (1) TMI 1443 - HC - Indian Laws

Quantum of Occupation charges - Continued occupation on leased land during the period of pendency of the writ petition as well as for the period prior to the filing of the writ petition - HELD THAT - The petitioners have paid a sum of ₹ 1,15,00,000/- pursuant to orders of Court. The Kolkata Port Trust authorities claim a sum in excess of ₹ 1,33,00,000/- excluding any interest - It is submitted on behalf of the Kolkata Port Trust authorities that the Kolkata Port Trust authorities could not proceed with the eviction proceedings in view of the interim order of status quo being granted by this Court. All the interim orders passed in this writ petition are vacated. The Estate Officer in seisin of the eviction proceedings will proceed in accordance with law with regard thereto. It is expected that the Estate Officer should complete such eviction proceedings as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The Estate Officer in doing so will not grant any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties. This order is passed in view of the long pendency of the writ petition since 2005 till date. A public property is involved here. It is in public interest. The status of such public property is required to be decided as expeditiously as possible. It would be open to Estate Officer to quantify the occupation charges payable by the petitioners for their occupation of the property from the date of their possession until their eviction. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the lease offer and acceptance between the petitioners and Kolkata Port Trust authorities.
2. Impugned letters dated February 21, 2003, and June 2, 2003, issued by Kolkata Port Trust authorities.
3. Dispute over occupation charges payable by the petitioners.
4. Eviction proceedings initiated by Kolkata Port Trust authorities.
5. Decision on relief sought in the writ petition.

Analysis:

1. Validity of Lease Offer and Acceptance:
The Court examined the series of communications between the petitioners and Kolkata Port Trust authorities regarding a 99 years' lease offer for a land at Transport Depot Road. The Court noted that the offers and counter-offers made by both parties did not culminate in a binding contract due to the lack of acceptance of terms. Consequently, the Court concluded that no enforceable contract existed between the parties.

2. Impugned Letters by Kolkata Port Trust Authorities:
The petitioners challenged the letters dated February 21, 2003, and June 2, 2003, issued by Kolkata Port Trust authorities. The latter letter demanded the petitioners to vacate the land by a specified date, warning of potential damages for continued occupation. The Court observed that the parties did not reach an agreement on the lease terms, and the conditions set forth by Kolkata Port Trust authorities were deemed reasonable. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petitioners' claim against these letters.

3. Dispute Over Occupation Charges:
A dispute arose regarding the quantum of occupation charges owed by the petitioners to Kolkata Port Trust authorities. While the petitioners had paid a substantial sum as per court orders, Kolkata Port Trust authorities claimed a higher amount, excluding any interest. The Court directed the Estate Officer to determine the accurate occupation charges payable by the petitioners from the date of possession until eviction.

4. Eviction Proceedings:
Kolkata Port Trust authorities had initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioners, but these were temporarily halted due to an interim order of status quo. The Court vacated all interim orders and instructed the Estate Officer to proceed with eviction proceedings promptly, aiming for completion within four weeks. The Court emphasized the importance of deciding on the status of public property efficiently.

5. Decision on Relief Sought:
In light of the above considerations, the Court disposed of the writ petition, denying relief to the petitioners. The Court highlighted the public interest involved in the case and emphasized the need for a swift resolution regarding the public property in question. No costs were awarded, and parties were granted access to a certified copy of the order upon fulfilling necessary formalities.