Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Amiya Kumar Maity And Others vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 16 August, 2017
Author: R. K. Bag
Bench: R. K. Bag
1
35.
BPg.
16.08. W.P. No.24676 (W) of 2015
2017
Amiya Kumar Maity and others
Versus
The State of West Bengal and others.
Mr. Amit Kumar Pan,
Ms. Tanusri Santra.
...for the petitioners.
Mr. Ansar Mondal,
Ms. Srilekha Bhattacharyya.
...for the State-respondents.
The petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for direction upon the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in terms of the award declared by the State-respondents.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the land of the petitioners described in paragraph 2 of the writ application was acquired by the State- respondents by initiating land acquisition proceeding being L.A. Case no.4/9 of 2012-2013 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The specific contention of the petitioners is that the award was made in connection with the acquisition of the land of the petitioners on July 20, 2012 and the possession of the land was taken over, 2 but the said acquisition proceeding lapsed by operation of law under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "New Land Acquisition Act of 2013"). The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners have not yet received the amount of award from the State-respondents.
It appears from the report submitted by the respondent no.3 that the land acquisition proceeding was initiated against the petitioners for acquiring the land by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on July 20, 2012 by initiating L.A. Case no.4/9 of 2012-2013. It further appears from the report that the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on March 8, 2013 and the award was prepared and declared on July 31, 2015. The specific contention made on behalf of the State-respondents is that the possession of the land was not taken over by the State by issuing notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the land of the petitioners was not required by the requiring body and as such the proposal was given by the Land 3 Acquisition Officer for releasing the land of the petitioners from the acquisition proceeding, but the same has not yet been finalised.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in "Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh V. Sri Avinash Sharma" reported in (1970) 2 SCC 149, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the land is already vested in the State free from all encumbrances for issuance of notification by the State-respondents under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the possession of the land is deemed to have been obtained by the State under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The further contention made on behalf of the petitioners is that the land cannot be released from the acquisition proceeding by issuing notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after issuance of notification by the State under Section 17(1) of the said Act of 1894. The stand taken by the State in the report submitted by the respondent no.3 is that 64.185 acres of land including the land of the petitioners is not required by the requiring body and as such the proposal is given for releasing the said land from acquisition proceeding, but 4 the approval of the Department of Land and Land Reforms, Government of West Bengal has not yet been received by the concerned authority. Nothing is on record to indicate that the notice was issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is held by the Supreme Court in paragraph 4 of the judgment in "Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh V. Sri Avinash Sharma"(supra) that when a notification under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is issued, on the expiration of 15 days from the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9(1) of the said Act, the possession previously obtained will be deemed to be the possession of the Government under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the land will vest in the Government free from all encumbrances.
In the instant case, I have already observed that there is nothing on record to indicate that the notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the State-respondents and as such on expiration of 15 days from the publication of notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act the deemed provision of taking over the possession of the land from the date of issuance of notification under Section 17(1) 5 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot have any application in the facts of the present case. As a result, in my view, the ratio of "Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh V. Sri Avinash Sharma" (supra) cannot apply in the facts of the present case. However, the land of the petitioners has not been released from the acquisition proceeding by issuing notice under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Moreover, the acquisition proceeding initiated by the State-respondents has also lapsed under Section 24 of the New Land Acquisition Act, 2013. Under the above circumstances, the State- respondents are bound to determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the petitioners in consequence of the notice and initiation of the land acquisition proceeding and shall pay the said amount to the petitioners together with costs reasonably incurred by the petitioners in prosecution of the present proceeding relating to the land in question within specified period of time as per provision of Section 48(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if the land of the petitioners is released from acquisition within specified period of time.
In view of above findings, the respondent no.3 6 is directed to take steps for releasing the land of the petitioners from the acquisition proceeding within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order. The respondent no.3 is further directed to determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the petitioners in consequence of the notice or on land acquisition proceeding initiated against the petitioners and pay the said amount to the petitioners together with all costs reasonably incurred by him within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order.
With the above direction, the writ application is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the parties, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
( R. K. Bag, J. )