Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Namita Mondal & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 March, 2019
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
1
20.03.2019
srm
W.P. No. 5412 (W) of 2016
Namita Mondal & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Arjun Roy Mukherjee,
Mr. Apurba Ghosh
...for the Petitioners.
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy
Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay,
Mr. Aniruddh Sen
...for the State.
Ms. Dipika Banu
...for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5.
This writ petition was filed challenging non‐payment of compensation pursuant to acquisition of several plots of land including the lands of the petitioners being Cadastral Plot Nos.1713, 1716 to 1728 of Mouza‐Garui, J.L. No.3 vide L.A. Case No.22 of 1966‐1967 by a Notification No.17786‐LA‐IG‐4‐63 dated October 1, 1963. Notice under Section 6 of the Act I of 1894 was published on July 21, 1966. In the Notification, the lands belonging to the petitioners have also been mentioned. Although the lands were taken over by the Housing Department and subsequently handed over to the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority for construction of housing, the petitioners did not receive any compensation. The petitioners several representations 2 before the Land Acquisition Collector, Burdwan in order to ascertain whether any award had been published with regard to the said L.A. Case and also whether compensation was awarded in favour of the petitioners or their predecessor‐in‐interest.
Despite all efforts, the petitioners were not informed about the fate of the L.A. Case and it is the stand of the petitioners that neither the petitioners nor the predecessors‐in‐interest of the petitioners had received any compensation. The petitioners made an application under the Right to Information Act for supply of the case records of L.A. Case No.22 of 1966‐1967. But the office of the Land Acquisition Collector, Burdwan intimated the petitioners that the file of the case referred could not be traced out.
It appears from a communication by the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority dated February 22, 2016 that the plots in question excluding Plot No.1729 had been handed over to the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority and the said authority informed the Land Acquisition Collector, Burdwan that necessary compensation may be arranged from the end of the Land Acquisition Collector. Hence it is clear that Plot Nos.1713, 1716, 1717, 1719, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1724, 1725 and 1726 which belonged to the petitioners had been acquired by L.A. 3 Case No.22 of 1966‐1967 and also handed over to the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority.
Mr. Roy Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, refers to the deed of conveyance between the State of West Bengal and the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority in order to show that even Plot Nos.1727 and 1728 were also included in the schedule of the plots that were transferred to the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority. However, it is an admitted position now that the lands of the petitioners had been acquired and were handed over to Asansol Durgapur Development Authority.
The Asansol Durgapur Development Authority also supports these facts by their affidavit‐in‐opposition.
It is submitted by the State‐respondents that still the file relating to L.A. Case No.22 of 1966‐1967 is not traceable. From the reports of the State‐respondents, which have been filed, it appears that the State‐ respondents have been suffering from a misconception that L.A. Case No.22 of 1966‐1967 was related to L.A. Reference No.2 of 1979.
On perusal of the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Asansol in L.A. Reference Case No.2 of 1979, it appears that the said proceeding arose out of reference under Section 8 of the Land 4 Requisition and Acquisition Act II of 1948 and not out of L.A. Case No.22 of 1966‐1967. The proceedings in L.A. Case No.22 of 1966‐1967 was under the Act I of 1894. Based on this misconception, this proceeding has been delayed before this Court and the Court has not received any assistance from the side of the State‐respondents despite the best efforts of the learned Counsel appearing for the State‐ respondents. Several opportunities have been given to the State‐ respondents to come up with the records and with answer to the query of the Court as to whether any award had been published in relation to L.A. Case No.22 of 1966‐1967 as also whether compensation in terms thereof any compensation had been paid in respect of the plots of the land of the petitioners and their predecessors‐in‐interest.
Finding no other alternative but as a last chance, this Court directs the learned Additional District Magistrate & District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman to answer the above queries and produce the original records of L.A. Case No.22 of 1966‐1967 on the next date. The said Officer will appear in person with all the records on the next date. If on the next date the records are not produced and the queries of the Court are not met, adverse inference will be drawn against the respondents and necessary orders will be passed accepting the 5 contention of the petitioners to be correct, unless the respondents can show from the records anything to the contrary.
The learned Advocate‐on‐record for the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority is directed to file a supplementary affidavit‐in‐ opposition annexing the Notification published on July 21, 1966 and any other documents which may be of assistance to the Court for final disposal of the writ petition.
The district administration, Purba Bardhaman is directed to render all co‐operation to the learned Additional District Magistrate & the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Bardhaman, if it is found that due to bifurcation of the district the records may have remained in the office of the concerned respondents in Purba Bardhaman.
Let this matter appear in the Daily Supplementary Cause List on May 10, 2019.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)