AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (4) TMI 950
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perties. 2. One Mr. Asit Kumar Ghosh since deceased was offered by the defendant 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Roy Chowdhury, learned Counsel for the defendant, contends that first of all the suit is not maintainable in view of non-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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....within the provision and/or meaning of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911, up to the stage of making offer to sell the aforesaid 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 bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion of compliance of the aforesaid Section will come. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Roy that the offer to 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 asp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome sort of periodic bar. Is created. The compliance of Section 156 is not required in strict sense and manner, the substantial 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 :-- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ins for delivery of physical possession of the property. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury, the possession both physical and paper, 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....