Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3978 Cal
Judgement Date : 5 July, 2022
05.07.2022
Item No.07
Court No.6.
S. De
M.A.T. 221 of 2019
With
I.A. No. CAN/2/2019
(Old No. CAN 3281 of 2019)
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Vs
Sagar Dey & Ors.
Mr. Susovan Sengupta,
Mr. Subir Pal,
...for the appellants/State.
Mr. Shamit Sanyal,
Ms. Manika Roy,
...for the respondent no.2&3.
Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee, ...for the respondent no.1.
By consent of the parties, the appeal and the
connected application are taken up together for
hearing.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and
order dated July 11, 2018 whereby W.P. 1275 (W) of
2018 was disposed of. The operative portion of the
order under appeal reads as follows :-
"therefore, I hold that acquisition of land under the said Act of 1956 includes acquisition of the permanent structures on the said land, including buildings, and the compensation amount determined under Section 3G(1) of the Act of 1956 must also include in terms of what the competent authority determines under sub-
section (7), the fair market value of the permanent structures thereon, and a person aggrieved by the amount of compensation even in case of the amount or sum determined for the structure, can seek reference of that dispute before the arbitrator to be appointed under sub-section (5) of Section 3G and if he seeks such reference, the arbitrator is duty bound to decide the dispute and enhance or refuse to enhance the compensation even on that count, but is not entitled to refuse to accept such reference or refuse to consider such dispute.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent no.2 is directed to accept the application/reference for arbitration sought to have been made by the petitioner for enhancement of the compensation in respect of the building and/or structure of the petitioner as stated in prayer (a) of the writ petition. If such application is made within 14 days from date of uploading a copy of this order on the website, then the respondent no.2 shall enter upon the reference and commence arbitration and complete the arbitration and make and publish its award in accordance with law after giving due opportunities to the parties to present their case, within a period of six months from the date of making
of such application and communicate a duly certified copy of its award, with reasons and the full order-sheet, to the writ petitioner and not a mere synoptic copy of the award, within 14 days from making and publishing its award."
Land along with structures belonging to the writ
petitioner/respondent was acquired under the
provisions of the National Highways Act.
Compensation was awarded to the writ petitioner
separately in respect of the land and the structures.
He was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation
on both counts. He approached the learned Single
Judge saying that he had filed applications for
referring the matter to arbitrator as contemplated
under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act.
Although the application pertaining to the land was
accepted, the application pertaining to the structures
was not accepted on the alleged basis that "land did
not include structures".
The State disputes that the writ petitioner made
any application for reference to arbitrator in respect of
compensation awarded on account of structures.
The learned Single Judge, as noted above,
allowed the writ application holding that land would
include structures standing thereon and, therefore, if
the owner of such structures is aggrieved by the
quantum of compensation awarded in respect of such
structures, he was entitled to ask for reference to
arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the Act. The
learned Judge granted time to the writ petitioner to file
an appropriate application and pass consequential
orders. Being aggrieved, the State is before us by way
of this appeal.
Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate appearing for
the State takes serious exception to the first paragraph
of the judgment under appeal. He says that the
observations made in that paragraph are unwarranted
and uncalled for since there was no application for
reference of the matter to arbitration in respect of the
structures. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for
the respondent no. 1 strongly opposes such
submission.
We are not inclined to get into the controversy as
to whether or not the writ petitioner made an
application for reference of the matter to arbitration in
so far as the structures in question are concerned. We
are told that pursuant to liberty granted by the learned
Single Judge such an application has since been filed.
We are however of the view that the first paragraph of
the judgment under appeal may be deleted.
Accordingly, we direct that the first paragraph of the
judgment under appeal be expunged.
As regards the remainder of the order under
appeal, we do not see any infirmity therein. If the writ
petitioner/respondent has filed an application
pursuant to the liberty granted by the learned Single
Judge, the same shall be carried to its logical
conclusion, in accordance with law. It is desirable
that if the application has been filed by the writ
petitioner, the same may be disposed of at an early
date and preferably within three months from the date
of communication of this order to the concerned
authorities.
Accordingly, MAT 221 of 2019 is disposed of
along with the application being I.A. No. CAN/2/2019
(Old No. CAN/3281/2019)
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if
applied for, shall be given to the parties as
expeditiously as possible on compliance with all the
necessary formalities.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!