Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Partha Sarathi Chatterjee vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 April, 2014
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
1
145
21.04.2014.
mb/ap M. A. T. 3210 of 2006 With C.A.N. 6254 of 2006 Partha Sarathi Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Amit Kumar Pan, Mrs. Tanusri Santra.
...for the appellant.
Re: CAN 6254 of 2006 This application has been filed for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that sufficient reasons have been furnished for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.
Therefore, the delay of 131 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.
The application being CAN 6254 of 2006 is allowed.
Re: MAT 3210 of 2006 2 The legality of the judgment and order dated 21.02.2006 passed by the single bench in W. P. 11100 (W) of 2003 has been questioned by way of filing the intra court appeal.
The facts in short are that earlier an order was passed by this Court on 16.11.2005 whereby and whereunder the Collector was directed to publish the award in respect of the lands in question and make payment to the petitioner in terms of the said award.
Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the award had been declared upon payment of compensation amount in terms of the award. Compliance report had also been submitted before this Court. As the petitioner had prayed for publication of the award and had accepted the compensation, the single bench decline to go into the validity of the notice issued under Section 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997.
The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that in view of the provision contained in Section 7A of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, the proceeding stood lapsed and no award could have been passed by the Collector. Amount had already been received under protest by the appellant. As such, appellant could question the legality of award which had been passed.
The learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the proviso to Section 7A of the aforesaid Act to contend that the award was required to be passed within one year from the date of commencement of the amendment Act, 1994. Since the award was not passed within one year from the date of commencement of the amendment Act, 1994, the proceedings lapsed in the year 1995.
After hearing the learned advocate for the appellant, we are of the opinion that once the petitioner had prayed before the single bench that the award be passed and award had been passed pursuant thereto, and the petitioner had accepted the compensation 3 amount, though under protest, he could not have questioned the legality of the proceedings. Apart from that the learned advocate on specific query has submitted that possession had been taken in the way back in 16.6.1984.
In our opinion, once possession had been taken, award had been passed pursuant to the order passed by the single bench and compensation had been received, the validity of the notice issued under Section 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997 could not have been questioned by the appellant.
Thus, we find no illegality in the judgment and order passed by the single bench dismissing the writ application.
Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed without, however, any order as to costs.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) (Arun Mishra, Chief Justice)