Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
8 Ct. No.09 Sunder Devi Anchalia & Ors vs The State Of W. B. & Ors on 17 July, 2017
Author: R. K. Bag
Bench: R. K. Bag
1
17.07. W. P. 21962 (W) of 2006
g.b. 2017
08 Ct. No.09 Sunder Devi Anchalia & Ors.
Vs.
The State of W. B. & Ors.
Mr. Raja Basu Chowdhury
Mr. Atish Ghosh
Mr. D. Mukhopadhyay
........For the Petitioners
Mr. Ayan Banerjee
.......For the State
The petitioners have filed this writ petition praying
for direction upon the respondents for quashing of the
requisition proceeding initiated against the petitioners and for other ancillary reliefs.
The report in the form of an affidavit filed by the respondent no.4 is kept on record.
The petitioners claim that 20 decimals of land appertaining to plot no. 5062, J. L. No. 95 of Mouza - Sainthia under P. S. - Sainthia in the district of Birbhum was requisitioned by the State by initiating L. A. proceeding being L. A. Case No. 2 of 1986-87 under the provisions of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. It appears from the report submitted by the respondent no.4 that the possession of the said land of the petitioners was taken over and handed over to Sainthia Municipality. It is contended on 2 behalf of the petitioners that the previous land requisition proceeding initiated under the provisions of Act II of 1948 was not converted into land acquisition proceeding under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and thereby the previous requisition proceeding lapsed. The further contention made on behalf of the petitioners is that the land of the petitioners was not released from the requisition and no rent compensation was paid, though the respondent no.4 has stated in his report that the requiring body has been requested to pay rent compensation by issuing memo no.396-LA dated April 28, 2017.
Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel representing the State respondents submits that the petitioners previously approached this Court by filing W. P. No.3773(W) of 2006 and the said writ petition was dismissed for default on August 23, 2006 and as such the present writ petition filed by the petitioners on September 21, 2006 is not maintainable in law.
On the other hand, Mr. Basu Chowdhury, learned counsel representing the petitioners contends that the right of the petitioners to get their land released from the requisition is a continuing cause of action and as such 3 the present writ application is maintainable in law, even though the petitioners did not file any application for recalling the order of dismissal for default passed in the previous writ petition.
Since the land of the petitioners has not been released from the requisition and since no compensation has been paid to the petitioners for not converting the requisition proceeding into acquisition proceeding under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, I am of the view that the cause of action for which the present writ application is filed is a continuing one and as such I am unable to accept the contention made on behalf of the State respondents that the present writ application is not maintainable in law.
There is no dispute that 20 decimals of land of the petitioners was requisitioned by the State under the provisions of Act II of 1948 and the said requisition proceeding lapsed without making payment of rent compensation to the petitioners. The further admitted position is that the respondent no.2, Sainthia Municipality is still in possession of the land of the petitioners. Had the land requisition proceeding been converted into land acquisition proceeding, the said 4 proceeding would have lapsed for not passing any award by virtue of Section 24 (1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the New Land Acquisition Act of 2013). Since the possession of the land is already taken over and handed over to the requiring body, it is incumbent upon the State respondents to initiate fresh land acquisition proceeding under the provisions of the New Land Acquisition Act of 2013 for the purpose of making payment of compensation to the petitioners. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case the petitioners are also entitled to get rent compensation from the date of taking over possession of the land under the provisions of Act II of 1948 till the date of initiating fresh proceeding against the petitioners under the provisions of the New Land Acquisition Act of 2013.
In view of my above findings the respondent no.4 is directed to initiate land acquisition proceeding against the petitioners in connection with the land of the petitioners in question under the provisions of the New Land Acquisition Act of 2013 and to pay compensation to the petitioners under the provisions of the New Land 5 Acquisition Act of 2013 within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order. The respondent no.4 is further directed to make payment of rent compensation to the petitioners in accordance with law for the period indicated in the body of the order.
With the above direction writ application is disposed of.
(R. K. Bag, J.)