Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Company Limited & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 April, 2022
April 08, 2022
ARDR
(5)
WPA 20219 of 2021
With
WPA 20220 of 2021
With
WPA 20222 of 2021
With
WPA 20224 of 2021
With
WPA 20225 of 2021
With
WPA 20226 of 2021
With
WPA 20228 of 2021
With
WPA 20229 of 2021
With
WPA 20231 of 2021
With
WPA 20232 of 2021
With
WPA 20233 of 2021
With
WPA 20236 of 2021
With
WPA 20238 of 2021
With
WPA 20240 of 2021
With
WPA 20243 of 2021
With
WPA 20247 of 2021
With
WPA 20249 of 2021
With
WPA 20251 of 2021
With
WPA 20253 of 2021
With
WPA 20256 of 2021
With
WPA 20259 of 2021
With
WPA 20262 of 2021
With
WPA 20264 of 2021
With
WPA 20267 of 2021
With
WPA 20268 of 2021
With
2
WPA 20270 of 2021
With
WPA 20272 of 2021
With
WPA 20273 of 2021
With
WPA 20276 of 2021
West Bengal State Electricity Transmission
Company Limited & anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. S. K. Panja,
Mr. Sumit Ray,
...for the petitioners.
Mr. Gourav Das,
...for the State in WPA 20219 of 2021.
Mr. Chandi Charan De,
Ms. Chandana Ghosh,
...for the State in WPA 20220 of 2021.
Mr. Tarun Kumar Ghosh,
Mr. Tapas Ballav Mondal,
...for the State in WPA 20222 of 2021.
Mr. Soumitra Mukherjee,
...for the State in WPA 20224 of 2021.
Sk. Mujibar Rahaman,
Ms. Rupsha Chakraborty,
...for the State in WPA 20225 of 2021.
Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay,
Mr. Arka Kumar Nag,
...for the State in WPA 20226 of 2021.
Mr. Raja Ram Banerjee,
...for the State in WPA 20229 of 2021.
Mr. Ayan Banerjee,
...for the State in WPA 20231 of 2021.
Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay,
Mr. Subhasis Bandyopadhyay,
...for the State in WPA 20232 of 2021.
Mr. Chandi Charan De,
Mr. Somnath Mukherjee,
...for the State in WPA 20233 of 2021.
Mr. Sudipta Panda,
Mr. Subrata Ghosh,
...for the State in WPA 20236 of 2021.
Mr. Chandi Charan De,
Mr. Somnath Mukherjee,
...for the State in WPA 20238 of 2021.
Sk. Md. Galib,
Ms. Subhra Nag,
...for the State in WPA 20240 of 2021.
Mrs. Anwari Quraishi,
Mrs. Zainab Tawur,
3
...for the State in WPA 20243 of 2021.
Ms. Jayeeta Sinha,
Mr. Sandip Mandal,
...for the State in WPA 20247 of 2021.
Mr. Chandi Charan De,
Ms. Reshmi Rahaman,
...for the State in WPA 20249 of 2021.
Mr. Biswajit De,
Ms. Rajlakshmi Ghatak,
...for the State in WPA 20251 of 2021.
Mr. Raja Saha,
Mr. Amit Kumar Ghosh,
...for the State in WPA 20253 of 2021.
Ms. Nibedita Barui,
...for the State in WPA 20256 of 2021.
Mr. Ansar Mondal,
Mr. Bibekananda Tripaphy,
...for the State in WPA 20259 of 2021.
Sk. Mujibar Rahaman,
Sk. Musior Rahaman,
...for the State in WPA 20262 of 2021.
Mr. Ansar Mondal,
Mr. Suprabhat Bhattacharyya,
...for the State in WPA 20264 of 2021.
Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay,
Mr. Ram Chandra Guchait,
...for the State in WPA 20267 of 2021.
Mr. Tapan Mukherjee,
Mr. Bipin Ghosh,
...for the State in WPA 20268 of 2021.
Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay,
Mr. Arka Kumar Nag,
...for the State in WPA 20270 of 2021.
Mr. Susovan Sengupta,
Mr. Subir Pal,
...for the State in WPA 20273 of 2021.
Ms. Sima Adhikary,
Mr. Kapil Guha,
...for the State in WPA 20276 of 2021.
As the issue under consideration in these writ
petitions is identical, all the writ petitions are taken up
for consideration by a common order.
The judgment of the reference Court under Section
18 of the West Bengal Land Acquisition Act, 1894 passed
on 29th November, 2017 in L.A. case no.29/2006 is
under challenge in all the writ petitions.
4
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that
though they are the requiring body/necessary parties to
the reference case, no notice of the said case was served
upon them and they were deprived of an opportunity of
being heard before the L.A. Court. The judgment
impugned was passed behind the back of the petitioners
though the liability of payment of enhanced amount of
compensation has been thrust upon them by the
reference Court. The petitioners have prayed for setting
aside the impugned judgment and grant of an
opportunity before the reference Court for adducing
evidence in support of their contention and contest the
application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894.
Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the
State respondents have submitted that the writ petitions
are not maintainable as the petitioners can take recourse
to alternative efficacious remedy. The petitioners can
either pray for being impleaded as parties to the pending
appeal filed by the State authorities or file a separate
appeal challenging the judgment impugned.
It is not in dispute that the judgment impugned
was passed without impleading the petitioners as parties
therein. The petitioners being the requiring body, are
liable to pay the enhanced award decided in the said
judgment and the petitioners are in fact admittedly
necessary/interested parties. There is no dispute with
regard to the merits of the writ petitions. The sole point
for consideration is whether the writ petitions are
maintainable in view of the fact that an appeal preferred
by the State respondents against the judgment
impugned is pending.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed
reliance on an authority in M/s. Neyvely Lignite Corpn.
Ltd. vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
Neyvely & ors. reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court
1004, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed
that in the event compensation is enhanced by the
reference Court under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, the
appellant is at liberty to file an appeal under Section 54
of the Act or to get impleaded as a party respondent in
the pending appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer
or to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In other words, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has granted three-fold option to the
present petitioners in either filing an independent
appeal, joining in the appeal filed by the State
respondents or filing a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution. Such opportunity was granted by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court keeping in mind that the
beneficiary would have to undoubtedly bear the burden
of compensation and would be affected by the judgment
of the reference Court.
This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that if the
present writ petitions are disposed of during the
pendency of the appeal, there may be conflict of
decisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has come to the
aid of this Court on this issue as well. It has been
clearly observed in the judgment in M/s. Neyvely Lignite
Corpn. Ltd. (supra) in such situation, the writ petitions
may be treated as appeals under Section 54 of the Act
and be dealt with and disposed of according to law.
In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold
that as an appeal filed by the State respondents against
the judgment impugned is pending, the writ petitions
ought to be dealt with along with the pending appeal in
order to avoid conflict of decisions.
In the premises, the writ petitions be treated as
appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 and be dealt with in accordance with law.
As a consequence, the writ petitions are released
due to lack of determination. The writ petitions be placed
before the appropriate Bench having determination.
(Suvra Ghosh, J.)
