Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Biswanath Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 July, 2011
Author: Indira Banerjee
Bench: Indira Banerjee
1
31.
12.07.2011.
d.d.
W. P. No.17955 (W) of 2010
Sri Biswanath Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Jayanta Kumar Das,
Mr. S. Karmakar
....... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Subir Pal
........ For the State.
The issues involved in this writ petition are covered by the
judgment and order dated 19th May, 2011 of this Court in W.P.
No.16926(W) of 2010 heard and decided along with W.P.
No.16927(W) of 2010, W.P. No.22301(W) of 2010, W.P. No.22302
(W) of 2010 and W.P. No.18073(W) of 2010.
The only question, involved in this writ petition, is whether
any person can be deprived of property without recourse to
procedure prescribed by law? The answer to the aforesaid question
is obviously in the negative.
Article 300A of the Constitution of India provides - "No person
shall be deprived of his property, save by authority of law".
Private property cannot be acquired or requisitioned, or
possession thereof taken without the consent of the lawful property
holders, except in accordance with statute enacted by a competent
legislature.
2
The writ petitioner claims to be owner of the plots of land
specified in the writ petition, which are located adjacent to Orissa
Trunk Road and/or Jamuna Barabetia Road in Kharagpur.
According to the writ petitioner, the respondents are
encroaching into the land of the writ petitioner for widening of the aforesaid road, without initiating any proceedings for acquisition of the same.
There can be no doubt that widening of a road is a public purpose. The State has wide power to acquire land for public purpose. However, such acquisition has to be made by recourse to law, upon payment of compensation to interested persons, deprived of their right to enjoyment and/or ownership of the property.
It is submitted that in the case of this writ petitioner, no acquisition proceedings have been initiated either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or any other law. In spite of directions issued by this Court from time to time, in some of the writ applications, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent authorities in any of the writ petitions. The allegations of encroachment into private property without initiation of acquisition proceedings are not disputed.
This Court has not adjudicated factual issues of whether the writ petitioner has any right, title or interest in the plots of land in question, or whether there has been any encroachment at all into the said plots of land.
3The writ application is disposed of by restraining the respondents from encroaching on the property of the writ petitioner without recourse to procedure established by law. It is clarified that this judgment and order will not prevent the State respondents from initiating and/or if initiated, continuing with proceedings for acquisition of the land in question or from taking possession of the land, in accordance with law.
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance of all requisite formalities.
( Indira Banerjee, J )