Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
State Of West Bengal And Others vs Sukanta Pal on 9 March, 2021
4 09.03.2021
M.A.T. 668 of 2016
Ct. No. 02 With
CAN 1 of 2016 (Old No. CAN 4115 of 2016)
With
CAN 2 of 2016 (Old No. CAN 4116 of 2016)
State of West Bengal and Others.
Vs.
Sukanta Pal
............................
Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata,
Mr. Prasanta Behari Mahata.
..for the appellants.
Mr. Swapan Kumar Kar.
..for the respondent.
Re: CAN 1 of 2016 (Old No. CAN 4115 of 2016)
This is an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring
the appeal beyond the statutory period of limitation. It
appears that there has been a delay of about 341 days
in preferring the appeal. The State explained such
delay in paragraph 4 to 9 of the said application. We
are of the opinion that sufficient cause has been
shown for not preferring the appeal within the period
of statutory limitation. The delay in filing the appeal is,
therefore, condoned. The application CAN 4115 of
2016 is disposed of.
M.A.T. 668 of 2016
This appeal has been preferred challenging a
judgment and order dated May 05, 2015 passed by the
learned Single Judge.
The writ petition was filed praying, inter alia,
directing the State to complete the acquisition
proceedings under the Land Acquisition (West Bengal
Amendment) Act, 1997 after making compensation to
the petitioner in connection with L.A. No. 1/16 of
1965-66 initiated under West Bengal Land (Requisition
and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act-II of 1948). It has been
alleged in the writ petition that the land of the
predecessor-in-interest of the writ-petitioner was
requisitioned under the said Act and never returned
back by the State. It was further alleged that the State
was under obligation to pass an award and make
compensation to the writ-petitioner in terms of
Sections 4, 5, 5A, 6, 7 and 8 of the Land Acquisition
(West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997. No such steps
were taken by the State to pay compensation in terms
of the said amendment Act.
Before the learned Single Judge the State took a
stand that under the provisions of Section 24 (1) of
Act-30 of 2013, there is no provision for converting the
lapsed cases under Act-II of 1948.
Rejecting such contention as advanced by the
State, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ
petition directing the respondents to take all possible
steps so that the land acquisition cases should be
concluded within a period of six months and the
compensation according to the current market rate is
paid to the petitioner within the said period. Learned
Judge held that respondents were under an obligation
to take steps for converting the cases initiated under
the Act-II of 1948 into the Act-I of 1894 and the
respondents not having taken such steps deprived the
petitioner of his valuable right.
Though this appeal has been preferred at the
instance of the State before us, it has been submitted
by the learned Advocate for the State that State
Government is ready and willing to purchase the land
in question in terms of a Memo No. 756-LP/1A-
03/14(Pt-II) dated 25.02.2016 issued by the Land and
Land Reforms Department.
The State has further assured that such
proceeding may be completed within a period of five
months from date.
The writ-petitioner does not oppose to such
stand taken by the State. Since the controversy in the
writ petition has been set at rest by the stand taken by
the parties, no useful purpose will be served by
keeping this appeal pending.
Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of giving a
direction upon the State to purchase the land in
question within a period of five months from date, in
terms of the Memo No. 756-LP/1A-03/14(Pt-II) dated
25.02.2016 and pay the sale proceeds to the
person/persons legally entitled to receive the same.
M.A.T. 668 of 2016 and the application for stay
being no. CAN 2 of 2016 (Old No. 4116 of 2016) are
accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.
(Harish Tandon, J.)
(Kausik Chanda, J.)
