Aimun Bibi & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 5329 Cal

04.10.2021
  Ct-10
P.A./A.P



                                WPA No. 736 of 2019
                                Aimun Bibi & Ors.
                                       versus.
                          The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                    Mr. Partha Pratim Roy       ... for the petitioner.

                    Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay
                    Mr. Subhasis Bandyopadhyay           .... for the State.

                    Mrs. Maanika Roy                  ... for the NHAI.


                    The allegation of the writ petitioners is that they

             have not been awarded adequate compensation for

             acquisition of land and building in District Mushidabad,

             P.S.   Beldanga,    Mouza:-     Barua,      Sabek     Dag   No:-

             1903/3001 (L.R. 3216). The said plot of land was

             acquired by the concerned authority for the purpose of

             widening the National Highway 34 by LA Case No. NHAI-

             34-21/2009-2010.      The     petitioners    raised    objection

             against notice of acquisition published in 2010 which

             was turned down and the respondent authorities issued

notice under section 3C (2) of the National Highways Act,

1956 directing the petitioners to appear before the

authority. But the respondent authorities did not

publish award and without payment of the

compensation amount initiated eviction proceedings

illegally. The amount of compensation awarded in favour

of the petitioners in respect of the structure was

informed to the petitioners but no award was granted in

respect of the land in question. The petitioners submit

that no notice was served upon them under section 3H

(2) of the 1956 Act and no award declared prior to 01-

01-2015. In view of The Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013, the petitioners are entitled to

compensation in terms of the said Act.

The grievance of the petitioners with regard to non

issuance of notice of payment under section 3H (2) of the

National Highways Act 1956 was ventilated by the

petitioners in writ petition being W.P. 369 (W) of 2018

which was disposed of by a coordinate bench of this

court with a direction upon the concerned authority to

communicate to the petitioners the amount of

compensation payable to them. By an intimation dated

13-09-2018, the Additional District Magistrate (Land

Acquisition) / competent authority informed the

petitioners that the total compensation with regard to

the acquired land could not be apportioned among the

land owners as the land was involved in the Partition

Suit being 279/2011 pending in the court of Ld. Civil

Judge (Senior Division), Berhampore, Murshidabad. The

petitioners submitted a representation before the

concerned authority for determining compensation in

terms of the Act of 2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits

that as the land in question is the subject matter of a

partition suit, the petitioners, for the present, claim

revised compensation in respect of the structures

thereon.

The National Highways Authority has submitted

that as the entire compensation has been deposited with

the State authorities, it has no further role to play in the

matter.

The State respondents have submitted a report in

compliance with an order of this court. The report

demonstrates that compensation in respect of land and

structure in LA Case No. 21/2009-2010 was declared by

the competent authority on 27-03-2015. The matter was

referred for arbitration and as per order of the arbitrator

under section 3G (5) of the 1956 Act passed on 07-11-

2019; an additional award for the said land was made.

The compensation for the land itself could not be

apportioned due to pendency of the partition suit where

the land is involved. The matter is due to be referred to

the Ld. District Judge, Murshidabad under section 3H

(4) of the Act of 1956 for apportionment. Award in

respect of the structure in the land was declared in

favour of the writ petitioners and paid to them in 2017.

The additional amount of compensation in terms of the

arbitral award has also been paid to the petitioners on

05-01-2021. Supplementary award for left out structure

has been paid to the second petitioner and such

payment is due only in respect of the third petitioner.

I have heard the submissions made on behalf of

the parties and considered the documents on record.

It is the admitted position that the acquired land

is subject matter of a partition suit and therefore the

amount of compensation so far as the land is concerned,

payable to the co-sharers cannot be apportioned.

However, compensation payable for the said land has

been assessed. The report filed by the State respondents

reveals that the petitioners have been awarded

compensation in respect of the structures standing on

the land in 2017. The land losers who were aggrieved by

the said compensation applied before the arbitrator

under section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956

for determination of additional compensation. Notices

were served upon all the land losers and were also

published in two daily newspapers before the matter was

decided by the learned arbitrator. The arbitration

proceedings concluded by an order dated 07-11-2019

wherein the arbitrator considered the claim of the land

losers for additional compensation in terms of the first

schedule of the 2013 Act and awarded such additional

compensation in their favour. The petitioners in the

present writ petition were awarded additional

compensation for the structure in the land in question in

terms of the arbitral award on 05-01-2021. Therefore the

petitioners had knowledge of the arbitral award on 05-

01-2021 if not earlier. With regard to the initial award

received by the petitioners in 2017, there is nothing on

record to demonstrate that such award was received by

the petitioners on protest or any objection in this regard

was ventilated by the petitioners before the appropriate

authority. In fact, in their representation before the

respondent no. 3 which was received by the latter on 05-

11-2019, the petitioners have admitted receipt of

compensation in respect of the structure and there is no

whisper in the four corners of the representation that

the said compensation was inadequate. In the said

representation, the petitioners claimed compensation

under the 2013 Act as the declaration of compensation

was made on 17-03-2015. This grievance of the

petitioners was dealt with by the arbitrator under

section 3G (5) of the Act of 1956 and the petitioners have

been granted additional compensation in terms of the

arbitral award. Therefore the grievance of the petitioners

as made out in their representation before the

respondent no. 3 has been redressed and nothing

remains for consideration in the present writ petition. It

is pertinent to mention here that the arbitral award was

also not challenged by the petitioners under section 34

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in terms of

section 3G (6) of the Act of 1956.

In view of the above observations, the writ petition

being W.P.A. 736 of 2019 is dismissed.

There shall be however no order as to costs.

Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if

applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on

compliance with the usual formalities

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)