Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nirmal Alias Bata Krishna Pal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 January, 2021
18
13.01.2021
rrc
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APELLATE SIDE
WPA 3404 of 2020
Nirmal alias Bata Krishna Pal
- Versus -
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Rabindranath Mahata
......For the petitioner
Mr. Sushovan Sengupta
Mr. Subir Pal
.....For the State
Petitioner's father Paresh Chandra Pal, since
deceased was the owner of 0.26 acres of land in Plot No.
241, 0.60 acres of land in Plot No. 243 and 0.12 acres of
land in Plot No 341 all under Mouza - Baradiha, Khatian
No. 269, J. L. No. 227, P.S. - Kharagpur, District -
Midnapore (West). Petitioner himself was the owner of 0.57
acres of land in Plot No. 340 under Mouza - Baradiha,
Khatian No. 269, J. L. No. 227, P.S. - Kharagpur, District
- Midnapore (West).
It is the case of the petitioner that during 2007-08
the respondent no. 4, the Land Acquisition Officer,
Midnapore initiated a proceeding to acquire the above plots of land owned by himself, as well as his father, since deceased.
According to the petitioner, his father died leaving behind himself as the only son and three daughters. It is asserted that in terms of a family settlement entered into by him and his three sisters, the aforementioned plots of 2 land originally owned by his father, since deceased devolved upon himself. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he alone acquired a right to receive the compensation amount on account of acquisition of all the aforementioned four plots of land. Out of the total compensation amount awarded for all the four plots of land for Rs.13,19,844/- the petitioner has been paid Rs. 4,98,581/- only on account of compensation in respect of the plot of the land owned by himself.
However, one of his sisters, Smt. Sandhya Sani, instituted a suit, being Title Suit No. 191 of 2008, before the Court of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, 1st Court, District - Midnapore (West), praying for partition of one-third share upon declaration of a right, title and interest in respect of the Plot Nos. 241, 243 and 341 owned by her father. The petitioner has disclosed a copy of the certified copy of the order dated July 10, 2017 passed in the Title Suit No. 191 of 2008 whereby the said suit was dismissed for default. According to him, till this date the plaintiff in the said Title Suit No. 191 of 2008 has taken no step for restoration of the said partition suit. Therefore, he is entitled to receive the balance compensation amount of Rs.8,21,263/-.
By a communication dated November 21, 2017, the petitioner informed the respondent no. 4, the Land Acquisition Collector to the dismissal of the said Title Suit No. 191 of 2008 and requested him to pay the balance amount of Rs.8,21,263/- to him. From the documents 3 disclosed in the writ petition it appears that the petitioner has also submitted certified copy of the said order dated July 10, 2017 to the respondent no. 4. The respondent no. 4, nevertheless has not taken any steps to pay the balance compensation amount to the petitioner. On January 28, 2020 the petitioner issued a letter for demand of justice to the respondents, but the same has evoked no response. In these facts, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming for an appropriate direction upon the respondents to forthwith pay the said sum of Rs.8,21,263/- together with interest at the rate of 16%, per annum.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the present case the facts are not in dispute and, as such this Court would dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to pay the said sum of Rs.8,21,263/- together with interest @ 16% per annum to him.
It is, however, contended by the State respondents that the Record of Rights disclosed by the petitioner reflecting his name being recorded in respect of the aforementioned plots of land does not prove his title over the said plots of land. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim to receive the entire compensation for acquisition of all the plots of land originally owned by his deceased father to the exclusion of his sisters. According to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to obtain any relief in this writ petition.
4
I have considered the materials on record, as well as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. In the present case, the petitioner has disclosed documents to substantiate that the concerned State respondent had issued the relevant notice under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, 'the Act of 1894') for acquisition of all the aforementioned plots of land, including the plots of land originally owned by the petitioners' deceased father, to the petitioner. Petitioner has also substantiated the dismissal of the said Title Suit No. 191 of 2008 filed by one of his sisters claiming to be one of the joint owners of the plots of land originally owned by her deceased father. From the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894, being Annexure P- 4 to the writ petition, it is evident that the same was addressed to the petitioner alone informing him that he is entitled to receive Rs.13,19,844/- on account of compensation for acquisition of all the aforementioned plots of land owned by himself and his deceased father. Thereafter, the respondent paid Rs.4,98,581/- to the petitioner, being the amount of compensation awarded in respect of his own land, being Plot No. 340 under Mouza Baradiha, Khatian No. 269, J.L. No. 227, P.S. -Kharagpur and withheld payment of the balance compensation relating to the acquisition of the aforementioned three plots of land originally owned by the petitioner's father. With the dismissal of the said Title Suit No. 191 of 2008 filed by one of the sisters of the petitioner, I am prima facie 5 satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to obtain the entire balance compensation amount of Rs. 8,21,263/- payable in respect of the plots of land originally owned by his father, since deceased being Plot Nos. 241, 243, 341 and 220/1897, particulars whereof are mentioned in the opening paragraph of this order.
In the facts of the case as discussed above, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the State respondents objecting to the relief claimed by the petitioner in this application.
For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition WPA 3404 of 2020 succeeds and the same is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 2, Collector, Midnapore (West) to ensure payment of the said sum of Rs. 8,21,263/- to the petitioner subject to the petitioner substantiating alleged family settlement as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the letter dated February 4, 2020.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Since the respondents are not called upon to file any affidavit, the allegations made against them in the writ petition, if any, shall be deemed to have been admitted.
All parties, including the respondent no.2 shall act on a certified website copy of this order to be forthwith issued by the Department, subject to the petitioner fulfilling the required formalities.
( Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. )