Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pratap Chandra Giri vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 November, 2021
November 17, 2021
ARDR
(45)
WPA 11974 of 2021
Pratap Chandra Giri
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Goutam Chakrabory,
Mr. J. N. Manna,
Mr. Kartick Kumar Roy,
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Chandi Charan De,
Md. T. M. Siddiqui,
Mr. Anirban Sarkar,
...for the State.
On consent of the parties, liberty is given to
learned counsel for the petitioner to add Special Land
Acquisition Officer, South 24 Parganas as respondent
no.8 in the writ petition within a week from date.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the
petitioner be taken on record.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he was/is
the owner of land in C. S. plot nos. 129 (part) and 57
in Mouza Kakdwip, J.L. no. 39, Khatian no. 99, Police
Station Kakdwip, South 24 Parganas and his land was
acquired by the Collector, South 24 Parganas vide
Case no. D-12 of 53-54. Possession of the said land
was taken by the authority and the land was utilised,
but no compensation for the same has granted to the
petitioner.
Referring to the status report filed by the
respondent authorities the petitioner submits that the
award in respect of plot no. 129 was declared on 3 rd
May, 1958 in favour of Bhutnath Mal and eight others
and the said award was placed in revenue department
vide no. R/4049 dated 29th December, 1958. Learned
counsel places reliance upon Memo no. LA(S) 8979
dated 15th February, 2019 issued by the State Public
Information Officer and Additional Land Acquisition
Officer, South 24 Parganas, in reply to his petition
under RTI Act, 2005 which states that C. S. plot
no.57 was also acquired. There is nothing to show that
compensation was paid with regard to the said plot of
land. The status report denying acquisition of the said
plot is also contradictory to the memo dated
15/2/2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the
attention of the Court to the proviso to Section 24 (2)
of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 which reads as follows:
"Provided that where an award has been made and
compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not
been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all
beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under
section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. "
Learned counsel submits that as the
compensation in respect of plot no.129 was not
deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, all the
beneficiaries are entitled to compensation in
accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act.
In support of his contention, learned counsel
also places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority vs. Manoharlal & ors. Etc. reported in
AIR 2020 SC 1946. He placed reliance on paragraph
363 (4) of the said judgment, which reads as follows:
"The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act
of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The
consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in
case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings
then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land
acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In
case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894
has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be
granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the
lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect
to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under
the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of
notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. "
Relying upon the said provisions of law, learned
counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction upon
the State authorities to pay him compensation in
terms of the Act of 2013 as well as in compliance with
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred
to above.
Learned counsel for the State authorities relies
upon the status report filed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, South 24 Parganas and submits
that in view of the proposition of law in the judgment
in Indore Development Authority (supra), it is
sufficient if the compensation amount is deposited
either with the Court or the Revenue Department and
payment of same in favour of the individual land
owners is not essential.
The petitioner, through his learned counsel, filed
a representation before the authority ventilating his
grievance on February 8, 2021, but the same has not
been considered as yet. Several communications were
exchanged between the petitioner and the authority
and despite submitting a search report and income
certificate as required by the authority, the petitioner's
representation was not considered.
Having considered the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and material on record, this Court
is of the view that the representation submitted by the
petitioner on February 8, 2021 ought to be considered
and disposed of by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, South 24 Parganas (added respondent no.8)
within a period of three months from the date of
communication of this order on merits after giving
reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the interested
parties including the petitioner, in accordance with
law.
The contention of the petitioner in the writ
petition be treated as part of the representation
submitted by the petitioner and be considered and
disposed of by the concerned authority on merits.
With such observation, WPA 11974 of 2021 is
disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
Since no affidavits are invited, the allegations
contained in the petition are deemed not to be
admitted.
Urgent certified website copy of this order, if
applied for, be furnished to the parties on usual
undertakings.
(Suvra Ghosh, J.)
