Dipak K. Ghosh Vs. State of W.B. & Ors  Insc 127 (10 March 2006)
& Dr.Ar. Lakshmanan
4-9 OF 2005 IN Writ Petition( C) No. 216 of 1999
This I.A.No. 4 of 2005 arises
out of W.P. No.216 of 1999 with C.A.No. 6707 of 1999
disposed of on 19.11.2004 inter alia with the
Government may appoint a Govt. Valuer and after
assessing the cost of construction, at the prevailing rate at the time of
construction, (cost of land will not be included), offer
the said price to respondent No. 8 and the Govt. may take over the building. In
this event the Government should give to respondent No.8 one year's time to
vacate, provided respondent No.8 and all family members and persons residing in
the bungalow file an undertaking in this Court within 8 weeks from today, that
they will hand over to the Government vacant and peaceful possession at the end
of one year.
if respondent No.8 feels that he should receive the prevalent market value for
the bungalow, he may so intimate the Government. The Government may then put
the house along with the land for public auction by advertising the same in two
national dailies and one local daily, if any, widely circulated in the area and
offer to sell the house to the highest bidder.
the case, as in Clause (ii), there would be two separate bids - one for the
house and the other for the land. In respect of the house the reserve price
should be fixed which shall not be less than the market value of a bungalow of
this type at present rates. Such valuation to be fixed by the Government Valuer. The value to be based on vacant possession being
delivered to the purchaser.
price of the house fetched in the auction sale be paid to Justice B.P. Banerjee and he must within a week of receipt of the price
hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the purchaser. If not delivered,
the Government to ensure eviction and delivery of possession to the purchaser.
process of the aforesaid directions shall be completed within six months from
the date of receipt of this order.
Chief Secretary of the Government of West Bengal shall send the compliance
report within the period stipulated.
clarify that respondent No. 8 or his relations shall not be allowed to bid in
the auction sale.
mention here that the Review Petition against the aforesaid judgment and
directions was dismissed on 22.2.2005. Curative Petition was also dismissed on
aforesaid directions having not been adhered to by respondent No.8 Mr. Justice B.P.Banerjee
(Retd.), this I.A. was filed by the State of
West Bengal seeking the following directions
from this Court:
Pass appropriate directions to
Respondent No.8, Mr. Justice B.P.Banerjee (Retd.) that he should cooperate with the applicant State of
West Bengal in its efforts to implement this Hon'ble
Court directions passed in its judgment dated 19.11.2004; and
To extend the time stipulated by
this Hon'ble Court in the said judgment by a period of
another 3 months time.
And pass such further or other
orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and in the
circumstance of the case." The interim order was passed by this Court on
6.5.2005 as under:
will be an interim order directing Justice Banerjee
to allow the valuer appointed by the Government to
take inspection of the bungalow. Such inspection and valuation will be subject
to the result of this I.A. Time is extended till the disposal of this
I.A." On 17.2.2006, a compliance report was filed by the Chief Secretary,
on behalf of the Government of West Bengal. We need not adhere to the entire
facts recited therein. Suffice it is to say that a pubic auction notice was
published in two national dailies viz., The Times of India, The Statesman and
in one local daily viz., Ananda Bazar
reserve price of the house was fixed at Rs.Twenty Lakhs which is the market value fixed by the Government valuer and the reserve price of land was fixed at Rs.Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand per cattah. On 4.2.2006, public auction was held. There were
two separate bids, one for the land and one for the house as per clause 26(iii)
of the judgment. In the said auction there were three bidders. One Shri Pradeep Murarka
offered the highest bid, Rs.20.50 Lakhs for the land
and Rs.30.50 lakhs for the house. The highest bid was
accepted and Shri Pradeep Murarka deposited Rs.12,01,000/-
on the day of auction through pay order. On 8.2.2006, he deposited the balance
amount. On 13.2.2006, the pay order of Rs.30,50,000/-,
payable to Justice B.P. Banerjee (Retd.)
Respondent No.8, as price of the house
fetched in the public auction was collected from the Bank of Maharashtra, Bidhannagar Branch.
On 14.2.2006, the pay order of Rs.30,50,000/- was sent
to Justice B.P. Banerjee (Retd.)
at his house FD 429, Salt Lake, Sector-III, Kolkata-700 106
through the process server, attached to the office of District Magistrate,
North 24 Parganas. Justice B.P.Banerjee
(Retd.) respondent No.8 was not available in his house
and no body present in the house accepted this letter and pay order. On
15.2.2006, respondent No.8 wrote a letter that he was unable to accept the bid
money of the building as his two applications i.e. I.A. Nos. 5 and 6 were
pending in the Supreme Court and acceptance of bid money would render I.A. Nos.5
and 6 as infructous.
No.8, however, undertook in the following terms:
your information and I would like place it on record that I have kept myself in
absolute readiness to quit and vacate the premises within 7 days as and when
called upon to do so by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court." Mr.Prashant Bhushan,
learned counsel for the petitioner in original Writ Petition No. 216 of 1999 in
fact contended that the market value fixed by the Government valuer Mr.Syamales Datta was Rs.Thirty Seven Lakhs for the land and Rs.Twenty Lakhs for the house. According to him, this market value
fixed by the Government should be accepted and respondent No.8 should be paid
only Rs.Twenty Lakhs for
the house. This, in our view, is quite a sensible suggestion but since we have
already ordered for public auction at this stage we are unable to relegate to
S.S. Ray, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondent No.8 contended that
the judgment and order passed by this Court on 19.11.2004 is void, a nullity
and non est as this Court
has no jurisdiction to pass such an order. He has also contended that the
public auction has been conducted contrary to the directions of this Court. We
have perused the compliance report and we are of the view that the public
auction was conducted consistent with the directions of this Court.
also noted with dismay the contention of the learned senior counsel Mr. S.S.
Ray that this Court has no jurisdiction to pass such an order and the same is a
nullity, void and non est. This contention was
persistently pursued despite repeated reminders by the Court that the Review
Petition and the Curative Petition have been dismissed and it was too late in
the day to raise such a contention, which would amount to re-opening of the
entire controversy. It is unfortunate.
this connection, he has referred to the decisions of this Court in the case of Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 1 SCC 39, Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar vs. State of
Gujarat, 1995 Supp.(1) SCC 596, Kiran Singh vs. Chaman Paswan AIR 1954 SC (2000)
1 SCC 278, Gaurav Jain vs. Union of India (1998) 4
SCC 270, Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of Commissioner, U.P. Allahabad, (1963) Supp. 1 SCR 885, Bhakta
Ratan, (1973) 2 SCC 629, State of Kerala
vs. P.P. Hassan Koya, AIR
1968 SC 1201.
view, all these decisions referred to by Mr. S.S. Ray would not be applicable
in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the sense that it is not
permissible to re-open the case to be heard on merits. As already stated, I.A.
No.4 has been filed by the State of West Bengal seeking from this Court a direction
to respondent No.8 to cooperate with the State Government in its efforts to
implement the directions of this Court passed on 19.11.2004 within a time
stipulated by the Court.
facts and circumstances recited above we now dispose of I.A.No.4 in terms of
our directions as quoted earlier:
The public auction held on 4.2.2006
The highest bid amount of Rs.30.50 lakhs for the house be paid to Justice B.P.Banerjee
(Retd.) within a week from today and he shall accept
the same without any demur.
He shall thereafter vacate the house
in question and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession to the purchaser
within a week from the day of receipt of the bid amount of Rs.30.50 lakhs. In case he refuses to accept the amount, one week
from the date of refusal.
If not delivered, the Government to
ensure eviction and delivery of possession to the purchaser.
should be paid to the Government of West Bengal.
the aforesaid directions I.A.No.4 is allowed. The compliance report is
constrained to observe that I.A. Nos.5 to 8 were filed by respondent No.8 Mr. Justice B.P. Banerjee
(Retd.) with a view to circumvent the order passed by
this Court. Such practice is deprecated. Same is the fact of I.A. No.9 filed by
the intervener. I.A. Nos. 5 to 9 are dismissed.
no application filed by either of the parties in this case shall be accepted by
the Registry without leave of this Court.