Ashok Sen vs Union Of India & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3891 Cal

July 01, 2022
    ARDR
  (16)
                                   WPA 21343 of 2021

                                        Ashok Sen
                                            Vs.
                                   Union of India & Ors.

                Mr.   Siddhartha Banerjee,
                Mr.   Kaushik Chowdhury,
                Mr.   Debasish Roy Choudhury,
                Mr.   P. K. Goswami,
                                                         ...for the petitioner.
                Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury,
                Ms. Sreya Basu Mallick,
                Mr. Ankit Dey,
                Ms. Shrijita Mitra,
                                                  ...for the respondent no.2.

Mr. Ansar Mondal, Mr. Rudranil De, ...for the State.

Affidavit in reply submitted by the 2nd respondent

and copy of a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of

this Court are taken on record.

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

The petitioner claims compensation to the tune of

Rs.5 lakhs as resident of the building which was

affected/collapsed during construction of the East-West

Metro Railway.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Metro Railways

places reliance on the minutes of the Core Group

meeting on implementation of the rehabilitation

measures for the residents of Bowbazar Street, Kolkata

held on 5th September, 2019, wherein it is recorded that

compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs shall be paid by

the authority to each affected family including house

owners/tenants and shop owners living in the

subsidence affected buildings. Learned counsel also

refers to a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of

this Court on 13th September, 2021 in WPA 12602 of

2021 wherein the Court has recorded as hereunder:

"Evidence presented before this Court by the

KMRCL is indeed conclusive that the petitioner may not

have resided in the premises at all.

This Court is, therefore, of the view that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any compensation as claimed by her in the writ petition. The writ petitioner shall, however, be entitled to get her building repaired the KMRCL."

The petitioner submits that he was ordinarily

residing in the premises in question when the incident

occurred.

The said contention of the petitioner is disputed by

learned counsel for the Metro Railway authority who

submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner was

not residing at the premises at the relevant time, he is

not entitled to compensation as claimed.

Upon consideration of the submissions made on

behalf of the parties and material on record, this Court is

of the view that as the petitioner claims to have been

residing in the premises in question at the relevant time,

he should be granted liberty to approach the State

authorities and the Kolkata Municipal Corporation with

relevant documents to substantiate his claim before the

authority.

Accordingly, the WPA 21343 of 2021 is disposed

of. There shall however, be no order as to costs.

The petitioner is at liberty to approach the

authority with relevant documents in support of his

claim within two weeks from date.

It is hoped and expected that the concerned

authority shall deal with the claim of the petitioner and

come to a reasonable conclusion as expeditiously as

possible.

Since no affidavit is 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 upon compliance of

necessary formalities.

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)