Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ajet Ali Baidya @ Ajet Baidya & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 November, 2017
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, Arijit Banerjee
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Present:
The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
AND
The Hon'ble Justice Arijit Banerjee
M.A.T. 1368 of 2016
with
CAN 7489 of 2016
Ajet Ali Baidya @ Ajet Baidya & Ors.
versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Writ Petitioners/Appellants : Mr. Siddhartha Ruj.
For the State-Respondents : Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata,
Mr. Prasanta Behari Mahata.
Heard On : 02-11-2017. Judgement On : 02-11-2017.
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, A.C.J. : The writ petitioners/appellants were settled with different plots of vested land by the State of West Bengal. It is alleged by the writ petitioners/appellants that the said land of the petitioners along with various other contiguous plots were acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. It is further alleged that though the petitioners are raiyats, but no award was published in their names and as a result, no compensation was also paid to them. Under such circumstances, the writ petitioners/appellants moved the writ petition jointly praying for restoration of their possession in their land acquired or alternatively payment of compensation.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition by an order dated 4th July, 2016 passed in W.P. 8163(W) of 2016. While dismissing the said writ petition, it was observed that such dismissal will cause no prejudice to the rights of the petitioners, if there be any, in pursuing their respective claims in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.
The legality and/or propriety of the said order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is under challenge in this mandamus appeal.
Having regard to the provision contained in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, we are of the view that under such circumstances the only remedy which the writ petitioners/appellants could have sought for is a reference to the court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners/appellants, however, submits that since no award was published in favour of the writ petitioners/appellants, they cannot seek any reference before the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides for such a reference at the instance of any person interested who has not accepted the award. Such interested person may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
"Person interested" has been defined in Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which runs as follows :-
"Section 3(b) - the expression "person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land."
In view of the said definition clause, we have no hesitation to hold that the writ petitioners/appellants being persons interested can apply for such a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, since the time limit for seeking such reference before the Collector has already expired, we, by relaxing such time limit, permit the writ petitioners/appellants to submit such an application before the concerned Collector within four weeks from date and in the event, such an application is submitted by the writ petitioners/appellants before the concerned authority within the time as fixed above, the concerned authority will consider the same in accordance with law within four weeks from date.
The appeal and the application for stay being CAN 7489 of 2016 filed in connection with the appeal are, thus, disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
(JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, A.C.J.) ( ARIJIT BANERJEE, J. ) dc.