Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Gita Paul & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 August, 2016
1
04.
26.08.2016
mb
In the High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
W.P. 23659 (W) of 2009
Smt. Gita Paul & Ors.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Partha Chakraborty,
Ms. Mousumi Shingha,
Ms. Smita Paul
...for the petitioners
Mr. Ansar Mondal,
Ms. Srilekha Bhattacharjee
...for the State respondents
Ms. P.S. Basu, Mr. Fazlul Haque ...for the respondent nos.
4, 5, 7 and 8 The petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of one Haripada Paul, since deceased, who was the owner of the 10 cottahs of land in plot no. 2476, at Mouza- Kasba, South 24-Parganas, hereinafter referred to as "the said plot of land". A portion of the said plot of land comprising of .05 acre was initially requisitioned by the State Government under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to "the Act of 1948", and the same was subsequently acquired under Section 4 of the said 2 Act. However, since no award for compensation was passed within the stipulated period under Section 7A of the Act of 1948, the acquisition proceeding in respect of the said .05 acre of the said plot of land lapsed and, thereafter, the same property was acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There is no dispute that during his lifetime Haripada Paul, since diseased, received the compensation amount awarded by the State Government under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of his share in the said .05 acre of land, comprising a portion of the said plot of land.
The petitioners claim that during the lifetime of Haripada Paul, the remaining portion of the said plot of land comprising of 0.47 acres was also first requisitioned by the State Government under the Act of 1948 and subsequently, the same was also sought to be acquired by the State Government under Section 4 of the Act of 1948. The petitioners, however, claim that during his lifetime, Haripada Paul was not made aware of any step being taken by the State respondents for acquisition of his share in 0.47 acres of the said plot of land. The petitioners further allege that neither their predecessor, Haripada Paul, during his lifetime nor they themselves have received any notice of passing any award of compensation for acquisition of the share of their predecessor in the said 0.47 acres of the said plot of land. The petitioners claim that since no 3 compensation was awarded either to their said predecessor or to themselves, the entire acquisition proceeding in respect of the share of their predecessor in the said 0.47 acres of the said plot of land stood lapsed and the respondents have wrongfully withheld delivery of possession of their land forming part of the said 0.47 acres of the said plot of land.
It appears that complaining refusal on the part of the State respondents to release their portion of the 0.47 acres of the said plot of land inherited through their aforementioned predecessor, the petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being W.P. 31632 (W) of 2008, and prayed for appropriate relief. By an order dated April 20, 2009 a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition by directing the concerned Land Acquisition Collector, being the respondent no. 3 in this writ petition, to consider the petitioners' representation dated September 04, 2008 in its proper perspective and to pass necessary order in accordance with law - of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The respondent no. 3 herein was directed to pass and communicate his order to the petitioners. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated July 20, 2009 passed by the respondent no. 3 in terms of the aforementioned order dated April 20, 2009. 4
Although, an opportunity was granted to all the respondents, including the respondent no. 3 to file affidavit-in-opposition to this writ petition, but none of the respondents has filed any affidavit-in- opposition.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that when it was the specific case of the petitioners that nothing about the acquisition proceeding in respect of the portions of 0.47 acres of the said plot of land was informed either to their predecessor-in-interest or to themselves and even no award for compensation was passed in favour of their predecessor, the entire acquisition proceeding relating to their share in the said plot of land had lapsed, by the impugned order, the respondent no. 3, Land Acquisition Collector has not dealt with any of their contentions. He strenuously contended that even in the impugned order dated July 20, 2009 the respondent no. 3 has not disclosed any particular about the date of award for compensation under Section 7 of the Act of 1948 or the apportionment of share of their predecessor-in- interest in the compensation award, relating to the said 0.47 acres of the said plot of land.
Mr. Chakraborty further submitted that the respondent no. 3 has mechanically and without any application of his mind passed the impugned order by only recording that the award was made for acquisition of the 0.47 acres of the said plot of land in favour of ten 5 persons named therein. He next contended that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 that the unpaid amount in award sl. no. 263 in plot no. 2476 in respect of the awardee will be paid after making correction of award making proper apportionment for which the petitioners are required to produce documents and after determination of their heirships of Haripada Paul, since deceased is a vague order. On these grounds Mr. Chakraborty urged for setting aside of the impugned order passed by the respondent no.3. Mr. P.S. Basu, learned advocate appeared for the respondent nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 and submitted that the said 0.47 acres of the said plot of land was acquired by the respondent no. 3 for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 and the respondent nos. 4 and 5 have paid the entire awarded compensation amount with the respondent no.3 as claimed by the latter. He further submitted that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 cannot be held liable for any defect in the order passed by the respondent no. 3.
Mr. Anser Mondal, learned advocate representing the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 submitted that by the impugned order the respondent no. 3, Land Acquisition Collector, has already allowed the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority to substantiate that they are the heirs and legal representatives of Haripada Paul, since deceased and to obtain payment of the awarded compensation in respect of their share in the said 0.47 6 acres of the said plot of land. He further submitted that since possession of the land in question has already made over to the respondent no. 4, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, the respondent no. 3 cannot pass any direction for delivery of possession of any portion of the said plot of land to the petitioners. Mr. Chakraborty, in his reply, however, submitted that since none of the respondents has filed any affidavit, the submission made on behalf of the respondent nos.4 and 5 should not be considered by this Court.
I have considered the facts of the case as also the all the materials on record. From the cause title of the order dated April 20, 2009 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court, in the aforementioned writ petition, being W.P. 31632 (W) of 2008, it is evident that the petitioners had claimed that the acquisition of the portion of the land of their predecessor, Haripada Paul, comprising 0.47 acres of the said plot of land had lapsed and they repeatedly claimed that nothing was informed by the respondent no. 3 either to their aforementioned predecessor or to themselves about any compensation award in respect of their share in the said 0.47 acres of the said plot of land. The petitioners have been categorically claming that there was no apportionment of the share of their predecessor in the compensation award in respect of his share in the said 0.47 acres of the said plot of land. By the order dated April 7 20, 2009 a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the respondent no. 3 to consider the representation of the petitioners dated September 04, 2008. However, the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 3 discloses nothing either about the date or any other particular of the compensation award in respect of the said 0.47 acres of the said plot of land or the apportionment of the share of the said Haripada Paul, since deceased, in the compensation award in respect of his share in the said plot of land. For all these reasons, the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 3 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order dated July 20, 2009 passed by the respondent no. 3 forming part of Annexure P-7 to the writ petition is set aside.
The respondent no. 3 is directed to pass a fresh reasoned order disclosing all the particulars of the acquisition proceeding initiated in respect of 0.47 acres of the said plot no. 2476 at Mouza- Kasba, including the date and authority who had passed the compensation award, if any and whether the predecessor of the petitioners was informed of the said award.
In view of the fact that no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent nos,4 and 5, I find merit in the submission made on behalf of the writ petitioner and do not accept the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.4 and 5.
8With the above directions, the writ petition, being W.P. 23659 (W) of 2009, stands disposed of.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.)