Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Shobha Devi Todi & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 April, 2017
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
1
06.04.2017
51
b.r.
W.P. 14691(W) of 2002
Smt. Shobha Devi Todi & Ors.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Om Narayan Rai,
Mr. Prashant Agarwal,
Ms. Kritika Singh
....... For the petitioners.
Mr. Chandi Charan De,
Mr. Supratim Dhar,
....... For the State.
Mr. Om Narayan Rai, learned Counsel, appears for the writ
petitioners and submits that the writ petitioners are entitled to receive
compensation in connection with the L.A. Proceeding Case No. 4/91 of
1998-99 then initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short Act I of 1894). Mr. Rai, taking this Court to the relevant
order sheet of the L.A. proceeding and, particularly to the order dated 4th
March, 2002, submits that the only disputed plot in the L.A. proceeding in
respect of which no verification and payment could be done is Plot No. 2935
since a counter claim had surfaced qua the said plot on the basis of a
registered deed as recorded in the order dated 4th March, 2002.
Mr. Rai, therefore, submits that in connection with the plots claimed
to be purchased by the petitioners on the basis of registered sale deeds
which, are also the subject matter of the L.A. proceeding, the absence of a
counter claim makes the said plots free of any dispute thereby enabling the
2
writ petitioners to claim the compensation through enforcement of this writ
proceeding.
On behalf of the State-Respondents, Mr. Chandi Charan De, learned
Additional Government Pleader appears with Mr. Supratim Dhar, learned Counsel and relies upon the Report on Affidavit taken on record vide earlier order of this Court dated 16th March, 2017. Mr. De reiterates the contention of the Report, which has been affirmed by the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Land Acquisition Department, Rajarhat on the 25th of January, 2017 and, states, inter alia, that no award could be declared qua the writ petitioners since the record of the L.A. proceeding failed to disclose the nexus of the petitioners to the plots in issue.
The non-awarded amount was therefore reported as 'not verified' and deposited in terms of Section 30 of Act I of 1894 with the competent L.A. Court at Barasat on the 24th of June, 2004.
Mr. De submits that it was always open to the petitioners not to avail of a collateral writ remedy but to directly seek out their relief through the provisions contemplated under the L.A. Act.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court is of the view that the 'not verified' report qua the plots under the scanner in this writ petition raises the requirement of establishing the nexus of the petitioners to the plots in issue before the competent L.A. Court.
3
This Court is also of the view that the writ remedy is neither efficacious, not alternative to the remedy of approaching the L.A. Court which is the custodian of the non-awarded amount.
Accordingly, this old writ matter must now reach its logical end. The petitioners are permitted to ventilate their claims in accordance with law before the L.A. Court which shall also be decided in accordance with law.
The above noted opportunity granted to the petitioners to approach the L.A. Court must not be construed as having created any right or equity in their favour before the L.A. Court which must consider the issue purely on its own merits.
W.P. No. 14691(W) of 2002 stands accordingly disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocate for the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
( Subrata Talukdar,J.)