Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
For The vs The State Of U.P. & Anr. Reported In on 2 February, 2022
February 02, 2022
ARDR
(16 & 17)
WPA 12926 of 2021
With
WPA 15297 of 2021
Mr. Tapan Kumar Rakshit,
Mr. Surojit Roy,
...for the petitioners in WPA 12926/21.
Mr. Puspendu Chakraborty,
Mr. Arkadip Sengupta
... for the petitioner in WPA 15297/21.
Mr. Puspendu Chakraborty,
...for the BPCL in WPA 12926/21.
Mr. Susovan Sengupta,
Mr. Manas Sadhu,
....for the State in WPA 12926/21.
Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay
Mr. Priyabrata Batabyal,
...for the State in WPA 15297/21.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Rakshit,
Mr. Surojit Roy,
...for the respondent nos. 5 to 11 in
WPA 15297/21.
The contention of the petitioners in WPA 12926 of
2021 is as follows:
The predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners
was the owner and occupier of the land in question which
was acquired in 1992-93 by L.A. Case no. 13 (Act II) of
1992-93. The petitioners were given a meagre amount of
compensation for which they filed an application under
Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 before the Land
Acquisition Collector for enhancement of the award. One
Sayeeful Islam who is similarly placed with the petitioners
also filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1948
which was disposed of by the learned Land Acquisition
Judge, Howrah on 24th June, 2002, enhancing the amount
of compensation payable to said Sayeeful Islam. The said
order is under challenge before an Hon'ble Division Bench
of this Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench granted an
order of stay of the execution case in connection with the
said order on condition that the requiring body deposited
the decreetal amount before the learned Registrar General
and in the event such amount was deposited the claimant-
respondent was entitled to withdraw half of the said
amount without any security.
The petitioners who stand on the same footing as
Sayeeful Islam, filed the application under Section 28A of
the 1894 Act which was considered and allowed by the
District Magistrate and Collector, Howrah re-determining
the amount of compensation and directing the requiring
body to place the requisite funds in favour of the Collector,
Howrah at the earliest. The writ petitioners submit that
the said order has not been complied with by the authority
till date. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners further
submits that the conditions laid down in the appeal
preferred against the order passed with regard to the case
of Sayeeful Islam is also applicable to the present case as
the petitioners filed an application under Section 28A
following the order passed in the case of Sayeeful Islam.
On the contrary, the writ petitioner in WPA 15297 of
2021 who is the requiring body in this case has challenged
the legality and validity of the order impugned on the
ground that the said order has been passed only on the
basis of the order passed in the case of Sayeeful Islam and
no independent consideration of the case of the parties
has been made in the order. Learned counsel for the
requiring body places reliance on the authority in Babus
Ram & ors. vs. The State of U.P. & anr. reported in
(1995) 2 SCC 689 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as follows:
"...... As soon as the award of the civil court is carried in appeal, it
becomes obligatory for the Collector to keep the application/applications
for redetermination of compensation filed within limitation pending,
awaiting decision by the appellate forum and to redetermine the
compensation on the basis of the final judgment and decree. Normally the
LAO would file the appeal against the enhanced compensation in a decree
of either the civil court or the High Court and will know their pendency. In
the case of appeal filed by the interested persons, the latter should inform
the Collector/LAO of the pendency of appeal or otherwise comes to know
of it should keep the applications for redetermination, received under sub-
Section (1) of Section 28-A within limitation pending, awaiting the decision
by the appellate court. Before proceeding with the determination, he
should obtain an affidavit from the party making the application under
Section 28-A that no appeal against the award made under Section 26
relied upon by him was filed or if had been filed was disposed of by the
appellate court and to produce the certified copy of decree and judgment, if
already disposed of."
Learned counsel for the requiring body points out
that as the appeal against the case of Sayeeful Islam is
pending before the Hon'ble Division Bench, the Collector is
not in a position to implement the order impugned. He
further submits that the Collector was not aware of
pendency of the appeal as no notice of the same was
served on him and as such, he proceeded with the hearing
of the case and brought it to its logical conclusion.
In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Babua Ram & Ors. (supra), this Court
is of the view that the claim of Sayeeful Islam and the
present petitioners in WPA 12926 of 2021 stand on the
same premise and in view of pendency of the appeal before
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court against the order
passed by the Collector in the case of Sayeeful Islam, the
order impugned passed with regard to the present
petitioners should be kept pending, awaiting the decision
of the Hon'ble Division Bench in appeal.
In view of the said proposition of law as laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, let both the writ petitions go
out of list for the time being. Liberty to mention.
(Suvra Ghosh, J.)
