PETITION BEFORE PARLIAMENT OF INDIA
Chapter-II Part- V Para 26 to 40

HOME

 Gist of My Sufferings | Announcement | INDEX | Covering Letter | Main Petition | Competancy of Parliament | Chapter-II Part-I | Chapter-II Part-II | Chapter-II Part-III | Chapter-II Part-IV | Chapter-II Part-V Para - 1 to 10 | Chapter-II Part -V Para 11 to 25 | Chapter-II Part- V Para 26 to 40 | Chapter-II Part- V Para- 41 to 60 | Chapter-II Part-V Para-61 to 105 | Vohra Committee Report | RIGHTS OF CITIZENS AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS ACT

26. That under the said long strategy to blackmail the Petitioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation once again revoked the said two Plans on the further false interalia grounds that respective Land has no passage for igress or ingress. Before passing the said Order by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Shri Kamal Basu the then Mayor of Kolkata Municipal Corporation called the Petitioner through one Councilor Shri Shanti Lal Jain and informed and conveyed the Petitioner that if he wants to live in Kolkata, he should transfer the property to the Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala. In respect of the subsequent Order of Revocation of the Plans, Honble Kolkata High Court directed to Kolkata Municipal Corporation to withdraw its illegal Second Order of revocation of plan.

27. That as the said Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala and his associates including Chuni Lal Mukherjee made long strategy to blackmail the Petitioner through various flimsy litigations, they attracted the Vendors of the Petitioners to join with them. This fact is confirmed from one letter received by the Petitioner from the Grand Daughter of said Vendor Ava Rani Dey and Daughter of Dipika Rani Bhattacharjee namely Mrs. Ratna Bhattacharjee, of 10/10, Kali Charan Dutta Road, Kolkata-700061. Photocopy of the said Letter is annexed herewith and marked as "ANNEXURE-O-12"

  1. That from the said letter of Mrs. Ratna Bhattacharjee, this was also confirmed that said Chuni Lal Mukherjee, as associate of said Mafia Leader was in regular touch with the Vendors of the Petitioner and under their strategy to blackmail the Petitioner got filed a Civil Suit against the Petitioner through his aforesaid Vendors namely Ava Rani Dey and Dipika Rani Bhattacharjee. As it was already explained in detailed under Paragraph 2-5 that total area of measurement of the respective properties was 66 Cottahs, and this is submissions on affirmation that no one can prove that total area of the properties comprised in R.S. Khatian No. 530 and 534 corresponding from C. S. Khatian 530 and 534 (covering all 6 R. S. as well C. S. Plots) cannot be measured by any means or methods more than 66 Cottahs of land nor aforesaid properties can be proved more than 66 Cottahs from any documents. If any one can prove the same area a single square feet more than 66 Cottahs of Land Petitioner once again repeat that he will bound to relinquish his all claims at every part of the aforesaid properties. But, he wanted to see that all the wrong doers must be punished with strong hands.

  2. This is a matter of historical fact that out of aforesaid 66 Cottahs of Land aforesaid Ava Rani Dey and Dipika Rani Bhattacharjee have lost their claim over properties comprised at R.S.Plot No.219 measuring more or less 10 Cottahs, because Civil Court held that Deed Executed by the Balaram Pal was not "legs to stand" as he was not the Owner of the Properties referred in Suit Khatian as well as of the Suit Land of the said Suit, and Court decided ownership on the basis of the document admitted by all parties to the Suit, i.e. "Records of Rights", being a valid document under the prevailing Law, if not challenged within limited prescribed period from the date of its publication, by the authority. According to the Records of Rights said properties measuring more or less 10 Cottahs of land was in forcible possession of the legal heirs of one Rabindra Lal Chakraborty. Since the object of the said Mafiadom for filing of the suit was to blackmail the Petitioner, as such under arithmetical manipulations the area of the Suit Properties was referred as 94 Cottahs as against actual and physical area of 66 Cottahs, including said lost properties measuring 10 Cottahs. Area of the aforesaid 6 Plots cannot be increased by any scientific or any other means from 66 Cottahs. But, in the Suit, with clear objectives to blackmail the Petitioner by misusing the platform of the "Administration of Justice", the area of the aforesaid 6 Plots manipulating 6 C. S. Plots with 6 Corresponding R. S. Plot but without clarifying them as C. S. Plots or R. S. Plots referred as 12 individual Plots. This was a severe Crime under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, provided respective Judicial Officer could have acted judiciously, since this was a strong and open evidence of the blackmailing by misusing the Administration of Justice.

30.    That instead of taking action by return of the Plain in consideration of manipulations, but, under embracement through influence or under gross abuse of the Judicial powers Learned Presiding Officer of the Court of the 5th Munsif, Alipore Mr. J. C. Moulick, passed Injunction Order against the Petitioner. As such the Petitioner filed Appeal against the Injunction Order of the Learned Court of the Munsif. At the first instance of hearing of Appeal, Learned Additional District Judge Mr. A.K. Chowdhury, made comment in open Court that in considerations of such manipulations he will return (reject) the Plaint of the Suit at limini and going to pass order to that effect. But, the reasons best known to him he withheld passing of the order for few days. When he passed the Order, under most surprisingly he upheld the said injunction order passed by the Court of the 5th Munsif, Alipore. As such Petitioner filed Revision Application before the Honble Kolkata High Court. At the 1st instance of hearing Honble Court satisfied that the Order of the Munsif was unjustified as such agreed to set-aside the same. At this stage the Senior Lawyer of the Petitioner Learned Mr. Shakti Nath Mukherjee, Bar-at-law argued that in considerations of the manipulations contained in the plaint he wants to place complete argument in the matter enable to Honble Court to pass a Rule to reject / return of the Plaint. Honble Court agreed with the aforesaid argument and fixed the matter for final hearing. Under development of such adverse situation against the blackmailing objects, the Advocate of the said Mafiadom started to influence the Advocate-on-record of the Petitioner Mr. Gouri Shankar Gupta, Advocate. As such initially Mr. Gouri Shankar Gupta, Advocate suggested the Petitioner for some compromise. When Mr. Gupta received negative response from the Petitioner, he entered in underhand criminal agreement with the opposite Party, as such one day when matter was called for hearing, and even Honble Judge was ready to Passover the matter to hear the matter from Ld. Mr. Shakti Nath Mukherjee, Bar-at-law, who also send message for Passover of the matter, as he was busy in another Court with other matter, but, under the aforesaid underhand criminal agreement Mr. Gouri Shankar Gupta, Advocate even ignoring strong objections from the Petitioner, moved the matter through another Lawyer and submitted knowing fully incompetent arguments. As a result, the same Order was passed by the Honble High Court, which Honble Court was ready to pass earlier after initial hearing of the Petition. The order of the Munsif was set aside and matter was returned for further hearing. As the matter of the fact that the area of the suit properties was manipulated from the actual physical area of 55 Cottahs to as 94 Cottahs just to obtain Injunction Order even against the entire admittedly sold properties of 35 Cottahs of land to the Petitioner and said 10 Cottahs of Land, over which said Ava Rani Dey and Dipika Rani finally lost their claims.

    1. That earlier Order was passed under the embracement of influence, by the self-same presiding Officer of the Learned Court of the Munsif Mr. J.C. Moulick who again passed injunction Order against the Petitioner Overruling 16 different Rulings given by the different High Courts and further over ruling the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for granting of the Injunction Orders. At the time of hearing of the Injunction Order Petitioner pleaded in writing that since he is defendant in the Suit, so his argument may not be considered as bonafide, but the documents filed by the Plaintiffs of the said Suit Ava Rani Dey and Dipika Rani should be taken into consideration for the passing the Order of Injunction Application. Since the documents referred therein by the said Plaintiff have shown the complete area with regards to the aforesaid 6 Plots just as 66 Cottahs, including aforesaid 10 Cottahs of Land over which Ava Rani Dey and Dipika Rani Bhattacharjee. But, as the Presiding Officer of the Learned Court of 5th Munsif Mr. J.C.Moulick, was under embracement of influence, as such ignoring all 16 Rulings of different High Courts, Documents filed by the Plaintiff themselves, but misusing his judicial powers under clear connivance with the aforesaid Mafiadom passed injunction order just on the ground that at this stage he cannot go into the documents filed by both side parties. In considerations of such acts and Deeds Petitioner filed Complaints before Bar Council of West Bengal against Mr. Tapash Kumar Sarkar, Advocate of the said Ava Rani Dey and Dipika Rani Bhattacharjee and lodged Prosecution Permission Petitions against Learned Mr. J.C. Moulick, the then Presiding Officer of the Learned Court of Munsif and Learned Mr. A.K.Choudhury, the then Presiding Officer of the Additional District Judge, Alipore. In fact this was submission of the Petitioner that the Petitioner, though is the Defendant, so his submissions may not be considered by the Learned Court at the stage, but even at this stage Court should go by the admitted documents of the Plaintiff of the said Suit, according to which the total area of the aforesaid entire properties comes just 66 Cottahs, including the properties covered in one Civil Litigation, in which said Plaintiffs lost their claims. Petitioner filed written Pleadings that in Passing the Injunction Order Court must follow the Jurisprudential Principles settled in that respect, are as follows:-

      1. The grant of a temporary injunction is covered by three well established principles Viz: (i) whether the Petitioner (in the said Suit Plaintiffs of the Suit) has made out prima facie case; (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in their favour, and (iii) whether the petitioner (in the said Suit Plaintiffs of the Suit) would suffer irreparable injury with the first condition as sine qua nonethepetitioner is to prove two conditions does not entitled a petitioner to an order of temporary injunction. AIR 1975 AP 187, AIR 1970 Main 37, AIR 1972 Cal 105, (1972)2 Cut WR 1697, AIR 1973 Raj 115, 1978 (2) Audh WR 340, 83 Cal WN 844. Those principles subsequently also uphold by the Supreme Court too.

      2. "Injunction being an equitable relief, the party seeking an injunction MUST COME IN CLEAN HANDS; AIR 1971 Cal 507.

      3. The burden of proving fact of case and balance of convenience and / or irreparable injury is on the plaintiffs praying for the relief: (1978) 2 Cut WR 138.

      4. In order to consider whether prima facie case has been out or not, it become necessary to decide whether the action as framed is maintainable or not; 73 Cal WN 388.

      5. In order to consider whether prima facie case implies be probabilities of the plaintiff obtaining a relief on the materials placed before the Court at that stage. Every piece of evidence produced by either party has to be taken into consideration in deciding the existence of prima facie case: AIR 1979 Raj 196.

      6. Party suppressing material fact from Court does not deserve granting of any discretionary relief much less a temporary injunction AIR 1968 KER 179; AIR 1970 MYS 141; AIR 1979 NOC 106 (Delhi).

      7. Before invoking the jurisdiction of the Court to seek temporary injunction the petitioner is bound to show that there was an invasion of the legal right; AIR 1978 Delhi 174.

      8. When monetary compensation is adequate relief, injunction is to be refused; AIR 1979 ORI 76.

      9. When by the proposed injunction the interest of third parties are going to be effected but they are not impleaded injunction should be refused; 1977 ALL WS 640.

      10. No interim injunction can be granted when the suit is found prima facie barred by RESJUDICATA; AIR 1964 PAT 387.

      11. If a mandatory injunction cannot be granted under the law, no temporary injunction can be granted in aid of relief; AIR 1974 Delhi 207.

    2. That the Plaintiff of the said Suit in the Plaint as well Injunction Petition admitted that they have sold 35 Cottahs of Land. Therefore, aforesaid 35 Cottahs of Land should not have subject matter of Injunction Order. Besides, said Plaintiffs lost their claim over the properties comprised in R. S. Plot No.219 and thus the same was barred by Resjudicata and should not have been the subject matter of the Suit. In any case, without admitting and prejudice his contentions, this is the submission of the Petitioner that even if there were any dispute that was with regards to payment in respect of rest properties more or less 21 Cottahs comprised in R. S. Plot No. 195 and 206. Therefore, the plaintiff if could have filed a suit against the Petitioner, i.e. could have been limited to said properties measuring 21 Cottahs of said R. S. Plots. But as stated hereinbefore the object of the said Suit was to blackmail the Petitioner and as such Learned Mr. J. C. Moulick, the then Presiding Officer of the Court of 5th Munsif, Alipore, under gratification or embracement to help the aforesaid blackmailing activities committed Contempt of his own Court by Over Ruling the Aforesaid 16 Rulings of different High Courts and ignoring the evidence relied upon by the Plaintiff themselves of the said suit, and ignoring the directions passed by the Honble Mr. Justice A. K.Nandi, of Kolkata High Court, just giving flimsy grounds that "court cannot embark upon at this stage" for not relying upon the documents filed by the Plaintiff / Petitioner of that suit, i. e. the Vendors of the Petitioner and passed the order of injunction over Ruling aforesaid Principles which were referred by the Petitioner in his written argument. If Mr. J. C. Moulick could have follow the aforesaid Principles laid down for granting of Injunction Order, then after going through the documents filed and relied upon by the Plaintiff he could have able to pass the order against the Petitioner.

    3. That at the same time said Mafiadom opened different fronts of litigations to cause heavy pressure upon the petitioner, as such when Attempt to murder took place said Mafia Leader Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala went several times at the Hospital to know about the health of the Petitioner, where he succeed to develop connections with one Shrawan Kumar Bhatter, who also booked the Flat with the Petitioner. When Petitioner after release from the Hospital come to residence, said Shrawan Kumar Bhatter along with his father Shankar Lal Bhatter meet with the Petitioner and said that when Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala interested to purchase the property, why he is not selling it to him, when he is ready to give good money. When Petitioner refused to accept such proposal, said Shrawan Kumar Bhatter and his father Shankar Lal Bhatter started to meet each person, who booked flats with the Petitioner and made promoters in his Cooperative Society, so he can create pressure upon the Petitioner taking advantage of the Membership of the said Cooperative Society. This is matter of fact that till then, starting from 1982, said Shrawan Kumar Bhatter or Shankar Lal Bhatter never go to the property, as they have to do nothing with it as it was belongs to the Petitioner, they have just booked the Flats and then were entitled to get their respective flats, on the terms and conditions agreed upon between both side. But, when the said Mafia advice them to took advantage of the Membership to create pressure upon the Petitioner to compel him to sell the properties to him, they under some huge amount of offer, decided to misuse the card of membership.

    34. That in the meantime, Petitioner got sanction of Plan and called a Special general meeting of the society to confirm the Allotment of the plans Flats and comprehensive plan with regards to properties, as such a Special General Meeting of the Cooperative Society was held on 6th September 1986 in accordance with the agenda of the said Meeting and Allotments were made from northern side proposed Building in favour of 15 persons considering the required area of each person and flats of Southern side building were allotted in favour of 8 Members in considerations of their requirements. In those two building each and every proposed Flats were allotted in favour of all 23 (except the Petitioner) Members. The said two Building has to be constructed at the Properties comprised at said R. S. Plot No. 206. In accordance with the agenda and proposal, the tenanted properties comprised in R. S. Plot No. 194 were allotted in favour of the Petitioner. 17 Members, including Raj Kumar Dhawan and his Son Chandra Sekhar Dhawan, attended the Special General Meeting. Out of rest 7 Members 2 Members telephoned to the Petitioner informing the reason of not coming to meeting, while Five Persons namely Sushil Kumar Bhatter, Shrawan Kumar Bhatter, Ashok Kumar Bhatter (Three brothers from the single joint family), Prabhu Dayal Sureka and Sushil Kumar Tulsian informed the Petitioner that they are interested in Allotment, but are interested to see the sale of the property to said Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala, as such decisively not attended the said Meeting. Photocopy from the attendance of the said Special General Meeting, Allotments made in favour of said Raj Kumar Dhawan and his Son Chandra Sekhar Dhawan and agreement executed in favour of the Petitioner are annexed herewith and Marked as "Annexure P-1, P-2, P-3 & P-4" respectively.

    35. That till then said Raj Kumar Dhawan and his Son Chandra Sekhar Dhawan were not with the Shrawan Kumar Bhatter and his father Shankar Lal Bhatter. But, as under the Cooperative Law enquiry of working of any Cooperative Society can be sought, with the strength of one third of total members. At that time, total number of Members of the Society were 24 as such one third could have been achieved by support of eight members. Shrawan Kumar Bhatter and his father Shankar Lal Bhatter after all efforts could not get support from more than 7 members. Out of said 7 Members three were sons of said Shankar Lal Bhatter. Two were said Father Son duo, namely Raj Kumar Dhawan and Chandra Sekhar Dhawan, though originally they attended the Special General Meeting of the Cooperative Society. One was Prabhu Dayal Sureka, who suppose to be friend of Mr. Kishan Lal Bagaria, Partner of M/S. B. M. Bagaria & Co., 6, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata-700001. One was Sushil Kumar Tulsian. So, with manipulations they obtained signature from one Dharam Chand Jain as if he is also amongst aforesaid 24 Members and applied for order of enquiry. Since they were backing of Shri Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, as such Cooperation Directorate was in their full support. But, suddenly this was came to notice of the Petitioner that to comply the condition of one third support for order of enquiry said Shankar Lal Bhatter obtained signature from said Dharam Chand Jain, Petitioner send Lawyers Notice to the Cooperation Directorate, copy of which is annexed herewith and Marked as "Annexure P-5".

  1. That the object of the said group comprised of 7 person (Sushil Kumar Bhatter, Shrawan Kumar Bhatter, Ashok Kumar Bhatter (Three brothers from single joint family), said father son duo Raj Kumar Dhawan and his Son Chandra Sekhar Dhawan, Prabhu Dayal Sureka and Sushil Kumar Tulsian were not to protect their own interest, but under offer of big monetary gains from said Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala decided to blackmail the Petitioner, taking advantage of the Membership of the said Cooperative Society, as such considering their changing behave Petitioner also took appropriate steps completely in accordance with the law and Rules, though then he was not aware that Shri Jyoti Basu personally is involved in the matter and supporting such blackmailing activities. When the Directorate of Cooperation received said letter from Advocate of the Petitioner, changed the strategy. They decided to hold the enquiry in the name of Inspection, ignoring the specific legal provisions for the Housing Cooperative Societies. Under the Law, Inspection purely is a Departmental matter and outsiders including the members of respective Society cannot be allowed at the time of the Inspection, while at the time of enquiry complainants for enquiry are entitled to present at the time of enquiry. As a result, said 7 persons were not allowed to participate in the garb of Inspection in the arranged enquiry, besides other grounds, the Legal Operative Mandatory Grounds that Membership of aforesaid 7 persons were automatically ceased in accordance with the law, which was intimated them in time.

37. That as the object of the aforesaid 7 persons was not to protect their own interests, but just to harass the Petitioner, as such make a strategy. If such refusal was at all any cause of action, the said 7 persons should have joined in single dispute case, but as the object of the aforesaid group was to blackmail the Petitioner, as such one Dispute Case was filed in or about January 1988, by single person out of aforesaid 7 persons namely Shrawan Kumar Bhatter. But, as there were various anomalies in the Plaint, including relates to limitation point, Mr. Mihir Ranjan Choudhury, the then Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society was not satisfied with the alleged Dispute, as such, till 30th May 1988, said matter was not registered as a Dispute case. However, subsequently, under behind the scene pressure said matter was recorded as Dispute Case No. 43 of 1987-88 of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. By the Order dated 30th May 1988 one Shri Arjun Mondal was appointed as the Arbitrator to adjudicate the matter in dispute.

38. That under the West Bengal Co-operative Law, once a person is appointed as Arbitrator in any Dispute Case, he cannot be replaced without compliance of certain conditions laid down by the said Law. This might have been considered subsequently, that object of blackmailing to the Petitioner might not served from said Arjun Mondal, as such after 66 days from the registration of the said dispute as Dispute Case, on 5th August 1988, but under the instructions from Mrs. Mira Pandey, IAS, the then Registrar of Co-operative Societies, (subsequently Petitioner understood that she then was performing illegal activities in the matters under direct instructions from Shri Jyoti Basu to help the said Mafiadom to grab the properties of the Petitioner) the file of the said Dispute Case was handed over the file of the said Dispute Case to one Mr. N. Goswami, most Junior to the appointed Arbitrator in the matter, in serious violation of the Law provided for appointment and replacement of the Arbitrators. Under illegal instructions from the said Registrar, Mr. N. Goswami conducted the matter in most absurd and illegal manner. Each and every fact relates to such illegality were put on record by the Petitioner. In considerations of such situations, on 9th January 1990 Petitioner lodged a Complaint before Probodh Dinkarrao Desai, the then Honble Chief Justice of Kolkata High Court, against Mr. N. Goswami. A copy of the said Complaint Letter is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure Q1.

39. That said Mr. N. Goswami was conducted the entire proceedings of the said Dispute case without having any appointment or authority as such he withheld the supply of the certified copy for about Ten Months, till he not complied illegal instructions form said Mrs. Mira Pandey. In fact Certified Copy of the entire Order Sheet was supplied on 6th January 1990 when Mr. N. Goswami, complete his illegal job, assigned by the said Registrar. After receipt of the certified copy of the entire Order Sheet of the said Dispute Case No.43/RCS/88-89 fact was came to the notice of the Petitioner that Mr. Arjun Mondal, ARCS, (not Mr. N. Goswami), was actually appointed as Arbitrator. Photocopy of the Photocopy of 1st page of Certified Copy the initially supplied on 6th January 1990 is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure: Q-2".

40. That at the left portion of the said certified copy the date was corrected by the pen, but supplied the Certified Copy to the Petitioner, without any initial of authority, as such Petitioner returned it to the West Bengal Co-operative directorate for initial at such correction by the pen. Thereafter, on 1st February 1990 the selfsame Certified Copy was returned to the Petitioner after, noting on the left part of it that "Corrected on verification of record." Photocopy of the 1st page of the said Certified Copy supplied after correction is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure: Q-3".