Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Animesh Mukherjee vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 23 March, 2015
Author: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
Bench: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
1
23.03.2015 W. P. No. 20702 (W) of 2014
Srimanta
08[S/L]
Animesh Mukherjee
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Trideb Kumar Sarkar.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Sadananda Ganguly, A.G.P.,
Mr. Saikat Chatterjee.
...for the State.
Mr. Dipankar Das.
...for the N.H.A.I.
Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.
Pursuant to the order dated February 20, 2015 Mr.
Ganguly, the learned Advocate for the State respondents has
produced an instruction received from the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Burdwan dated December 19, 2014. The said report, however, is not a current one inasmuch as there is no report on the order passed by the competent Court on January 03, 2015 or on any date thereafter in Title Suit No. 31 of 2008 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Durgapur. Let a copy of the said instruction, as prayed for by the State respondents, be kept with the record.
The case of the petitioner, inter alia, is that in the year 2008 he purchased the plots being Nos. 608 and 607/3110 in Mouza - Birudiha in the district of Burdwan from the erstwhile owners. Thereafter, the said property was partitioned amongst the brothers. Subsequently, the National Highway Authority adopted a scheme for expansion of the National Highway No. 2 and published a Gazette notification to that effect. It has been 2 made clear that of the two plots purchased by the petitioner only plot no. 608 has been acquired by the respondents and the possession of the acquired land was taken by the respondent authorities. In spite of a publication of the notification for determination of the amount payable to the petitioner he has not yet received any amount as compensation.
Mr. Das, the learned Advocate for the respondent no. 2 submits that the competent authority has already determined the amount receivable by the petitioner and the National Highway Authority has placed the amount with the competent authority for disbursement to the petitioner.
Mr. Ganguly submitted that the disbursement could not take place in view of the pendency of the Title Suit as mentioned earlier.
At this stage, Mr. Sarkar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has a rather innocuous prayer. He prays for disposal of the writ petition with the liberty granted to the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority. The respondents have no objection to the prayer made by Mr. Sarkar.
In such view of it, there is no point in keeping the writ petition pending in this Court. The writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority under the National Highways Act ventilating his grievances within a period of two weeks. In case 3 such representation is made the respondent no. 2 shall consider and dispose of the representation within a period of eight weeks thereafter. He shall be at liberty to give the petitioner and any other person or authority as he may think it necessary, an opportunity of being heard if he considers the same to be necessary.
In case the respondent no. 2 is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the compensation at this stage he shall dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned order. In the event he is of the view that the amount of compensation may be disbursed to the petitioner, he shall take all possible and consequential steps for disbursement of the amount of compensation in accordance with the law and the procedure laid down therefor as early as possible but not later than 12 weeks after such decision is taken. In either case he shall communicate his decision to the petitioner within a week after the same is taken.
Since this writ petition is being disposed of without calling for an affidavit all allegations contained therein are deemed to have been denied.
Needless to mention that while passing this order this Court has not entered into the merits of the case. That shall be decided by the respondent no. 2 strictly in accordance with law.
There will be no order as to costs.
4Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on the usual undertakings.
(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.)