Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Bablu Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 June, 2017
Author: R. K. Bag
Bench: R. K. Bag
1
17.
o.9
W.P. 28206 (W) of 2016
Sri Bablu Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Debayan Bera,
Mr. S. P. Chakraborty.
.....for the petitioner.
Mr. L. M. Mahata.
.....for the State.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, South 24 Parganas in connection with L.A. Case
No.4/22 of 2000-01, which is conveyed to learned advocate for the petitioner on May 3,
2013 (Annexure P-7 to the writ application) and praying for other ancillary reliefs.
It appears from the materials on record that one Kalidasi Rong was the owner of
the land appertaining to Plot No.8, J.L. No.12 of Mouza Madurdaha under P.S. Tiljala in
the district of South 24 Pgs. The petitioner claims to have acquired the said land from
Kalidasi Rong on the basis of the will executed by the said Kalidasi Rong. The probate of
the said will was granted by the Court of learned district delegate at Alipore on January
19, 2002 in connection with Case No.143/01(P). The said land was acquired by the State
respondents by initiating L.A. Case No.4/22 of 2000-01. The notice under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1948 was issued in favour of Kalidasi Rong and the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was also issued in favour of the deceased Kalidagi Rong, which was received by the petitioner. The petitioner filed an 2 application before the Land Acquisition Collector, South 24 Pgs on June 11, 2002 praying for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that the amount of compensation was not properly assessed for acquiring the land in question. However, the petitioner received the amount of award on May 6, 2003 without formally raising protest against the amount of compensation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the application submitted by the petitioner for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not sent to the Land Acquisition Judge on the ground of receiving the amount of compensation by the petitioner without protest. The impugned order dated May 3, 2013 by which the Special Land Acquisition Officer conveyed the refusal of the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Mr. Debayan Bera, learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made by the petitioner long before receiving the amount of award of compensation and as such the order of refusal of reference by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent no.4 is not justified under the law. He has relied on the decision of Supreme Court in "Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab" reported in (1994) 4 SCC 67 in support of his above contention.
Mr. Mahata, learned counsel representing the State respondents submits that the Special Land Acquisition Officer should have made the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when the application was submitted within the prescribed period of limitation.
The question for consideration of the Court is whether the Collector is duty bound to make the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when the award amount has been received by the person praying for reference. In "Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab" (supra), the enhanced amount of compensation was denied by the Land 3 Acquisition Judge to the appellants who had received the amount of compensation as per award without making any protest. In the instant case, reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is refused on the ground of receiving the award without making any protest. The facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of "Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab" and as such the ratio of the said report cannot be made applicable in the facts of the present case.
It is not disputed that the petitioner received the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector without making any protest with regard to the amount of compensation. Since the petitioner filed the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 long before receiving the award amount and since the petitioner categorically raised objection in the said application before the Collector with regard to the amount of compensation, I am of the view that the petitioner has made the protest with regard to the lesser amount of compensation awarded by the Collector.
In view of my above findings, I am constrained to hold that the letter dated May 3, 2013 (Annexure P-7 to the writ application) is not justified under the law. Accordingly, the said impugned letter dated May 3, 2013 is quashed. The respondent no.3, Land Acquisition Collector, South 24 Pgs is directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated June 11, 2002 (Annexure P-2 to the writ application) for making reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
(R. K. Bag, J.) 4