Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ashim Sinha & Others vs The State Of West Bengal & Others on 22 February, 2022
22.02.2022
Item no.25.
Court No.6.
AB
M.A.T. 381 of 2020
With
IA CAN 1 of 2020
(Old CAN 2632 of 2020)
IA CAN 2 of 2021
Ashim Sinha & Others
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Others
Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, Sr. Adv,
Mr. Debayan Bera,
Mr. Ayan Banerjee,
Ms. Debasree Dhamali ....for the Appellants.
Mr. Anirban Ray,
Md. T. M. Siddiqui,
Mr. N. Chatterjee ...for the State.
Mr. Satyajit Talukdar,
Mr. Abhishek Sarkar ...for the K.M.D.A.
By consent of the parties, the appeal and the
applications are taken up together for hearing.
In re : I A CAN 2 of 2021
This is an application for recording the death of
the appellant no.8, who passed away on August 14,
2021. The application is made within time.
The application is allowed.
Let the name of the appellant no.8 be struck off
from the array of appellants.
We are told that the only legal heir of the
appellant no.8 is already on record as appellant no.9.
2
IA CAN 2 of 2021 stands disposed of.
In re : MAT 381 of 2020
This appeal is preferred against a Judgment and
Order dated February 4, 2020, whereby W. P. No.
25195 (W) of 2015 was disposed of.
The writ petitioners, who are the appellants
before us, had challenged a land acquisition
proceeding. The acquisition proceedings were in
connection with LDP Case No.55 of 1954-55.
The learned Judge held that the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West
Bengal Vs Aziman Bibi reported in (2016) 15 SCC
710 squarely covers the facts of the present case.
Solely relying on that judgment, the learned Judge
held that the concerned acquisition proceedings have
lapsed. The learned Judge did not say anything further
and stopped there. That is precisely the grievance of
the writ petitioners/appellants, who say that having
held that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed, the
learned Judge should have directed the State to
initiate fresh acquisition proceedings and determine
compensation in accordance with law as a
consequential direction.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Learned Government Pleader and Md. Siddiqui,
appearing for the State, tell us that the State had filed
a petition for review of the Judgment and Order in the
3
case of Aziman Bibi. The review application has been
disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in terms of
an agreement between the parties that the date of
Notification of the acquisition shall be as on the date of
the order that was passed by the Supreme Court i.e.
January 13, 2020 and that the respondents shall be
paying compensation in accordance with the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013. The State says that a curative petition has now
been filed on behalf of the State, which is pending.
As on date, the decision in Aziman Bibi's case
stands and holds fort. It is binding on us. The State
has not challenged the learned Single Judge's finding
that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in the
facts of the case.
On a careful reading of the judgment under
appeal, we are also of the view that the learned Judge
rightly held and indeed had no choice but to hold that
the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. As a
consequential direction, the learned Judge ought to
have observed that the State should initiate fresh
acquisition proceedings.
We, accordingly, without interfering with the
order under appeal, further add that since the land
owned by the writ petitioners/appellants has already
been utilized, the State shall take steps for notifying
the acquisition once again and determine
compensation in accordance with law expeditiously
and not later than six months from the date of a copy
of this order being made available to it.
MAT 381 of 2020 along with CAN 2632 of 2020
is, accordingly, disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied expeditiously after compliance
with all the necessary formalities.
(Kausik Chanda, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
