Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Sri Saktipada Saha Chowdhury & Ors on 12 April, 2022
30. 12.04.2022
Ct. No.06
Tanmoy
M.A.T. 1545 of 2018
State of West Bengal & Ors.
-Versus-
Sri Saktipada Saha Chowdhury & Ors.
With
IA No: C.A.N. 1 of 2019 (Old No: C.A.N. 2002 of 2019)
With
IA No: C.A.N. 2 of 2019 (Old No: C.A.N. 2003 of 2019)
Mr. Susovan Sengupta, Adv.,
Mr. Subir Pal, Adv.
...for the appellants/State.
Mr. Sabyasachi Mukhopadhyay, Adv.,
Ms. Koushikee Banerjee, Adv.
...for the writ petitioners/respondents.
In Re: IA No: C.A.N. 1 of 2019 (Old No: C.A.N. 2002 of 2019) in M.A.T. 1545 of 2018 This is an application for condonation of delay of 907 days in filing the appeal. Causes shown being sufficient, the delay is condoned. The application being IA No: C.A.N. 1 of 2019 (Old No: C.A.N. 2002 of 2019) in M.A.T. 1545 of 2018 is disposed of.
In Re: IA No: C.A.N. 2 of 2019 (Old No: C.A.N. 2003 of 2019) with M.A.T. 1545 of 2018 By consent of the parties, the appeal and the connected application are taken up together for hearing. The writ petitioners had approached the learned Single Judge with the grievance that although their land 2 was initially requisitioned and thereafter acquired under the provisions of Act II of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, no compensation has been received by them till date. According to them, possession of their land was taken over in the year 1982-83.
The learned Single Judge referred to a revised report in the form of affidavit filed by the respondent Authorities and noted that compensation amount of Rs.11,51,308/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred Eight) had been determined but not paid to the writ petitioners.
The learned Judge directed the respondent Authorities to determine the market value of the land in question in terms of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act"). Being aggrieved, the State is before us in this appeal.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained since the acquisition of the land in question was initiated under the Act II of 1948 and not under Act I of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence, Section 24 or Section 26 of the 2013 Act cannot enure to the benefit of the writ petitioners. This means, the writ petitioners will not be entitled to the benefit of determination of compensation in terms of the provisions of the 2013 Act. 3 The order of the learned Single Judge therefore, is set aside.
However, the writ petitioners must receive compensation in terms of the provisions of Act I of 1894. It appears from the order impugned that an amount of Rs.11,51,308/- has been determined as compensation. The concerned L.A. Collector is directed to pass an award taking into consideration the said amount of Rs.11,51,308/- within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. If the said sum does not include interest, solatium etc., the L.A. Collector shall provide for such components in the award to be passed, as envisaged in the 1894 Act. Thereafter, the L.A. Collector shall follow the procedure prescribed in Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by giving due intimation to the writ petitioners, who will then be entitled to take further steps in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, whether under Section 18 or otherwise.
No further orders need be passed in this appeal. The appeal being M.A.T. 1545 of 2018 and the connected application being IA No: C.A.N. 2 of 2019 (Old No: C.A.N. 2003 of 2019) are accordingly disposed of.
Let urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities.
(Krishna Rao, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)