Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
WP-25195W-2015 on 3 August, 2018
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
1
03.08.2018
14
p.d.
W.P. No. 25195(W) of 2015
+
C.A.N. No.12177 of 2016
Re: C.A.N. No.12177 of 2016
Mr. Debayan Bera,
Mr. Sakti Prasad Chakrabarti ... For the petitioners.
Mr. P. S. Basu,
Mr. Satyajit Talukdar ... For K.M.D.A.
Mr. Chandi Charan De, A.G.P.,
Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay ... For the State respondents.
This is an application for substitution on the death of Mira Rani Hazra, the petitioner No.1 in the writ application, who died intestate on October 13, 2016 leaving behind her only legal heir and representative Sri Avik Sinha, the petitioner No.3 in the writ application, who is already on record.
Accordingly, this application for substitution, being C.A.N. No.12177 of 2016 is disposed of by expunging the name of Mira Rani Hazra, the petitioner No.1 from the cause‐title of the writ application. 2 Office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause‐title of the writ application accordingly.
Re: W.P. No.25195(W) of 2015 Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. In this writ application, two questions are in issue, namely, i ) whether 9.29 acres of land in respect of C.S. Plot No.1 of Mouza‐Madurdaha, J.L. No.12, which was relinquished by the R.R. Department to the K.M.D.A. for the purpose of East Kolkata Area Development Project, was vested in the State of West Bengal and
ii) if the said 9.29 acres of land, as mentioned hereinabove, was not vested, to what compensation and under which law, the petitioner would be entitled to his compensation?
It is the case of the petitioners that the land in question of which they are the owners was acquired under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act but no Award or compensation was ever paid to the petitioners although the K.M.D.A. is enjoying the said land for East Kolkata Area Development Project.
According to the learned Advocates for the State respondents and the K.M.D.A., the land in question is a vested land. He further submits that in view of the pendency of a matter in the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the 3 applicability of Section 24 of the new Act of 2013, the petitioner's case, if at all, cannot be considered in so far as the matter relating to grant of an Award or compensation is concerned.
According to the petitioners, Section 24 of the new Act, 2013 is not applicable, as the land in question was not acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984.
However, upon perusal of the documents, this Court finds that the petitioners have to answer the main question raised by the respondents that the land concerned was not a vested land.
The petitioners are given liberty to file a Supplementary Affidavit annexing such documents of such proceedings to show that the land in question, for which they have claimed compensation, were not vested but the lands were retained by the erstwhile big raiyat, namely, one Gangadas Pal. Such Supplementary Affidavit to be affirmed within two weeks and the copies thereof be served upon the respective learned Advocates appearing for the respondents.
Let the matter appear in the Daily Supplementary Cause List two weeks hence retaining its position in the list.
Liberty is also given to the parties to mention the matter.
( Shampa Sarkar, J. ) 4