Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
21.11.17 Ruma Mondal & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 November, 2017
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
1
4
sandip
W.P. No. 4616 (W) of 2017
Ct. 22
21.11.17 Ruma Mondal & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Amales Ray,
Ms. Mousumi Bhowal,
Mr. Deborshi Dhar ... for the petitioners.
Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya,
Mr. K. M. Hossain ... for the State.
Mr. Partha Sarathi Basu,
Mr. Satyajit Talukdar for the K.M.D.A./respondent.
Affidavit-of-service filed in court be kept on record.
The writ petition has been filed, inter alia, contending that the land situated in R.S. Khatian No. 174, R.S. Dag No. 296, J.L. No. 20, Mouza - Kalikapur, Touzi No. 35, District South 24 -Parganas admeasuring about 35 decimals, belongs to one Gopal Barui, since deceased, whose legal heirs are now before me as writ petitioners.
It is stated at paragraph 7B and also submitted from the Bar that since no award has been passed after acquisition of the aforesaid plot of land by the State authorities under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and consequently no payment has also been received by the 2 writ petitioners.
Learned Counsel Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya, appearing for the State has produced before me an affidavit filed by the writ petitioners dated 2nd of May, 1995 affirmed before a Notary Public, South 24 - Parganas and filed with the authorities concerned, wherein the petitioners have in no uncertain terms at page 2 have admitted that an award in respect of the said plot of land has already been passed.
Based on the submission that the award has not been passed the writ petitioners contended before me that the acquisition proceeding must be deemed to have lapsed under Section 7A of the Act II of 1948 as amended in the year 1996.
At the very outset it clearly appears to me that there is gross suppression of material facts and/or mis-statement thereof which is now sought to be corrected by way of a supplementary affidavit filed by the writ petitioners in Court today, abbeit admitting such incorrect and untrue statement made in the writ petition.
Learned Counsel for the writ petitioners, also admits to such suppression of material facts and/or 3 misrepresentation thereof and submits that notwithstanding such misrepresentation for which his clients may be penalized, his clients have not been paid any compensation by the respondent authorities under the award passed in question.
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the State submits that he needs to take instructions and is desirous of filing an affidavit.
In view of the above, the writ petition is admitted subject to payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- payable by the writ petitioners to the respondent no. 3 within a period of seven days from date, failing which the writ petition shall stand dismissed.
The payment as above be paid by way of demand draft and the said officer shall deposit the same in their appropriate account.
The State shall file an affidavit within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of communication of payment of costs from the learned advocate for the writ petitioners. Reply, if any, thereto within a period of two days thereafter.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) 4 5