Darjeeling, July 23: A nominated
member of the GTA Sabha from the Trinamul Congress has been accused of
trying to forcibly take over a part of Snow View Hotel here and
assaulting its owner with the help of goons.
Durga Kharel, the
accused GTA member, is a government pleader in the Darjeeling district
court and the convenor of Trinamul’s town committee. He is the counsel
of a woman who is fighting a legal battle in which her brother is
accused of not transferring to her a portion of the hotel though it was
bequeathed to her by the father.
The 33-room Snow
View Hotel was set up in 1931 along Hill Cart Road at Kakjhora in
Darjeeling. The hotel consisted of five small buildings, one of which
was purportedly given to Rikta Behera as per the partition deed of her
father, Sati Prasanna Biswas, in 1981.
The rest of the
four buildings are owned by Rikta’s brother, Santanu Biswas. However,
Rikta’s share was bought by Kharel for Rs 10 lakh in 2001, at a time he
was representing her in the in the court of civil judge (senior
division), Darjeeling, in the case against Santanu Biswas.
According to an
FIR filed by Santanu with Darjeeling Sadar police, Kharel arrived at
the hotel around 5pm yesterday and “tried to forcibly take possession of
the suit property by breaking open locks”.
“When resisted, Mr
Sharma (Durga Kharel is also known as Durga Prasad Sharma) assaulted
with kicks and boxed by pushing me down to the ground. His goondas were
fully armed with rods and sticks and if my neighbours had not
intervened, I, could have been grievously and seriously injured,” reads
the FIR.
Metro has pictures which don’t show anyone armed with rods and sticks.
Kharel, however,
denied the allegation and in turn filed a counter-FIR, accusing Santanu
and his wife of assaulting the GTA member and his spouse. Kharel said
the attack took place when he and his wife had gone to the hotel.
“I had gone there
not to take the possession of the property but only to see whether it
was damaged as I was in the area yesterday. There were no goons in the
area. But seeing me in the area, some Trinamul supporters had come,”
said Kharel.
Both the FIRs were lodged yesterday.
The police said
since the contents of the complaints suggested that there was only a
minor scuffle, it could be classified only as a non-cognisable offence.
“Therefore, we have submitted a report to the chief judicial magistrate
(in Darjeeling) apprising him of the two complaints,” said a police
officer on condition of anonymity.
In a
non-cognisable offence, a police officer does not have the authority to
make an arrest or launch a probe without permission from the court.
The scuffle took
place amidst a legal battle between Santanu and Rikta who filed a case
in the court of civil judge (senior division) in 1993, alleging that her
brother had not handed over to her the possession of her share of the
property.
Santanu lost the case in 2005. Even before the verdict came, Rikta’s property had been sold to her advocate, Kharel.
Santanu filed an
appeal in the district court against the civil judge’s order. In 2006,
Kharel, after getting a verdict on the possession of the building,
applied for the execution of the said order so that the property would
come under him.
However, since an
appeal had been filed in the district court, the Trinamul leader didn’t
press for the execution of the order for the possession. When Santanu
lost the case in the district court in 2012, Kharel again pressed for
the execution of the order. But Santanu claimed that he had filed an
appeal in Calcutta High Court.
Kharel said he had
found out that the case had not yet been admitted in the high court.
“Nevertheless, since he is claiming that he has appealed in the high
court, I told the civil judge that time should be given to Santanu to
bring the stay order,” said Kharel.
The GTA member
alleges that Santanu is trying to buy time so that “he will continue to
run the property as he has been doing since 1981 without paying
anything to the actual owner of the property”.
Biswas said: “I
will fight the case, if possible even in the Supreme Court and it is
for the court to decide on the facts. My only argument is that Kharel
cannot forcibly occupy the property taking advantage of his political
clout until the verdict is clear.”(TT)