9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for purchase of the said three plots of land in terms of Section 81 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 as the original offeree was the previous owner of the aforesaid plots of land which were previously acquired by the Calcutta Improvement Trust. There is no dispute to the aforesaid fact that the original offeree can exercise his statutorily preemptive right enshrined in Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 (hereinafter to as the said Act). There is no dispute that the full consideration has been paid long ago. 3. The original plaintiff namely Pallav Kumar Banerjee, since deceased, and the present two plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit in the capacity of the Joint Executors in terms of the last Will dated 28th August, 1994 made and publ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -service of statutory notice as required under Section 156 of the aforesaid Act. He contends that there must be a notice followed by pleadings in the plaint. There is none. On the face of it the suit is liable to be dismissed. His next contention on the question of law is that even if the suit is held to be maintainable then the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as admittedly the agreement was concluded sometimes on or about 27th July, 1965 whereas the suit has been filed in the year 1999. The suit should have been brought within three years from the date of execution of the aforesaid agreement. He contents that if it is held by this Court that the suit is otherwise maintainable, both on the question of limitation as well as ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid three plots of land if this exercise can be termed to be an act purporting to be done under this Act. After the offer is accepted and the formal agreement is entered into, the transaction becomes absolutely independent and outside the purview of the provision of the aforesaid Act. In support of his contention, he has relied on a decision and (1983) 1 Cal HN page 1 equivalent to (1983) 87 Cal WN 216. He contends alternatively even if it is held by this Court that the aforesaid notice is required to be served then a letter addresed to M/s. A. N. Dawn has been served upon the Board on 26th November, 1998 and much before institution of the suit. Therefore, substantial compliance of Section 156 has been done. 6. As far as the question o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sell the property under the provision of Section 81 of the said Act will not come within the purview of the aforesaid Act. The very basis of agreement is offer, that has been put forward under Section 81 of the said Act and this will appear from the admitted documents that the offer was made pursuant to the said provision. So I hold that the action taken by the Board is an act purporting to be under the provision of the aforesaid Improvement Act. As far as refusal is concerned, the same is culmination of the statutory action taken by the Board. The decisions cited by Mr. Roy are absolutely distinguishable on factual aspect. In those cases, transaction took place not in relation to Act or action pursuant to the aforesaid Act. Those transacti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tial compliance is good enough to enable the plaintiff to file suit. It has to be examined, whether the Government or statutory authority has understood the grievance and reliefs claimed by the notice. In this case the defendant understood. 11. Therefore, I am of the view that in this case the plaintiff has complied substantially with provision of Section 156, so I answer the Issue No. 1 in favour of the plain-j tiff and in the affirmative. 12. Now taking up the Issue No. 1 whether the suit is barred by limitation or not, I am of the view that the suit is not barred by limitation for the following reasons :-- According to the defendant's version that will appear in their evidence in questions Nos. 32, 83 of DW 1. Ram Prasad Mit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been given and such fact is denied and disputed by Mr. Roy Chowdhury. Mr. Roy Chowdhury further submits that in fact physical possession of the property was never taken by his client. I am unable to accept this contention at this stage as the property was admittedly acquired. So possession follows acquisition and this is what is exactly recorded in the judgment and order of Justice Sinha passed in the writ petition. Since there is a question as to who is in physical possession, in fact it may so happen by passage of time some other person or person might or might not sneak into property. In order to ascertain actual physical possession of properties in question, this Court for the ends of justice thinks that a fit and proper person be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
