Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Free India Dry Accumulatory Ltd. & vs State & Ors on 1 August, 2018
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1
01.08.2018
Item No. 54
Ct. No.4
AB
W.P. 13495 (W) of 2005
With
W.P. 13219 (W) of 2012
In the matter of: Free India Dry Accumulatory Ltd. &
Anr.
-versus -
State & Ors.
Mr. S. Panda, ld. Se, adv.
Mr. T. K. Sil
Mr. D. Choudhury
Mr. S. Bhattacharya
Mr. S. Chowdhury
Mr. P. Chowdhury
...... for the Petitioners
Mr. Kishore Datta, ld. AG
Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay
Mr. Aniruddha Sen
Mrs. Sujata Ghosh
........ for the State
Mr. Mainak Bose
Mr. S. Shukla
..... for the respondent No. 4
Mr. Panda, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits on challenge of his client in W.P. 13219(W) of 2012. He submits undisputed facts are, on 27th October, 1989 petitioners granted licence to Saraswati Press in respect of an area measuring 75,307 Sq. Ft., initially for 41 days to be extended further till vacant possession was delivered back to petitioners. On 25th March, 1991 requisition of said land was made under West Bengal (Requisition and 2 Acquisition) Act, (II), 1948. No award was made on acquisition pursuant to such requisition by notice dated 31st December, 1993. Act II of 1948 lapsed as on 1st April, 1997. Acquisition proceedings under such lapsed Act were incomplete till before the lapse. At present they initiation of such proceedings are of no consequence whatsoever.
So far as second line of action adopted by State is concerned regarding purporting to resume the land under sub-section (3) of section 6 in West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 is concerned, he submits, submissions have already been made and recorded regarding W.P. 13495 (W) of 2005. Law applied to the facts and circumstances will entitle petitioners to a finding, it is entitled to be in possession of the land. There should be direction for restoration of possession. In this case relief sought is in effect an alternative plea in case restoration of possession is sought to be avoided by State. In the event Court directs restoration of possession and accepts plea for avoidance thereof by State, there should be consequent direction for acquisition of the land under Right to Fair 3 Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
He relies on judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Ganesh Samanta reported in (2014) High Court Cases (Cal) 278, to paragraphs 24 to 27. He submits, view taken by Division Bench is, on lapse of notice under section 4(1-a) of Act II, State cannot be held as vested with title to the land by operation of said provision. Mr. Panda points out, his client would be entitled to further direction for occupation charges from respondents since according to him respondents continued to occupy without authority of law. He concludes his submissions.
Respondents will be heard writ petition of 2012 on adjourned date.
List on 8th August, 2018.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)