Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nisith Ranjan Bhowmik & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 November, 2017
Author: Mir Dara Sheko
Bench: Mir Dara Sheko
1
1451 27.11.17
akb
W.P. 2118 (W) of 2016
Nisith Ranjan Bhowmik & Anr.
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Rabi Sankar Chattopadhyay
Mr. Soumen Banerjee
Ms. Priyanka Tewari ...For the Petitioner
Mr. Prasanta Bihari Mahata ...For State Respondents
Heard Mr. Shyamal Sur, learned Counsel, representing the petitioners. Heard also Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, being assisted by Mr. Prasanta Behari Mahata representing the State respondents.
Grievance is, as ventilated by Mr. Sur, that the writ petitioners though were owners to the extent of .37 acres of plot No. 355, Mouza Palashi Para, J. L. No. 42 under P.S. Tehatta, though was acquired by the State sometimes in the year l988 for the purpose of construction of road to bridge over river Jalangi but any compensation award was neither assessed nor awarded to his clients.
Mr. Sur further submitted that by this time the new act in the name of Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation Resettlement Act, 2013 having come into force, the writ petitioners are now entitled to get benefit of Section 26 of such Act for getting assessment afresh of such acquired property and award money.
2Mr. Sur in support of his submissions relied upon an unreported decision in the case of The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Islam Ali Molla in MAT 1093 of 2015 passed by this Court on July 24, 2015.
Mr. Mahata though relied upon an unreported decision in the case of The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Niladri Chattrjee & Ors. in MAT 86 of 2016 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on August 23, 2017 apprised this Court that when there was requisition of the impugned land the requiring body ought to have secured the amount for handing over as award money and therefore question of conversion of the Act in the case on hand would not arise.
In the case of The State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Niladri (Supra) the amount towards compensation for the requisitioned land was kept secured but the authority failed to place the fund and expiry of the Act, 1948, the Collector of Burdwan abdicated his statutory duty by issuing notice under Section 9(3-B) of the Act, 1894. This was held by the Court as an act of negligence as a result of which the land acquisition proceeding would have lapsed due to laches and fault of the concerned Collector. This is in that judgment did not spare from criticising the writ petitioner who suddenly woke up from the slumber after long delay.
In the case on hand though there was 3 representation of the State since September 2016 neither any opportunity was availed of to submit affidavit-in-opposition denying the fact asserted by the writ petitioners who have contended that though the land was requisitioned and then acquired for the purpose of construction of approach road to bridge over river Jalangi but if the said amount was never paid as award money to their knowledge, then it would mean that admittedly the land belonging to the writ petitioners were acquired by the State for the aforesaid purpose and till this day award money was not paid, may be for the reason that it was not assessed.
Due to such lapses had there been any operation of law couldn't be stopped. Therefore, when the Act Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation Resettlement Act, 2013 has been introduced in the wisdom of the legislature with all beneficial provisions including Section 26 then the welfare State will have no other option but to adopt the same without any alibi to assess the award with the yardstick of market value in terms of the provision laid down under Section 26 of the Act (Supra) provided during acquisition of the subject land the award money was not assessed, segregated or paid to the awardee and/or deposited in the Court in the name of the payee within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.
4In view of the above the writ petition stands disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.
( Mir Dara Sheko, J.)