Asim Chandra Kumar vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 929 Cal

01.03.2022
 Item No. 47
Court No.6.
    S. De
                            Through Video Conference

                                 F.M.A. 1620 of 2015
                               I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2015
                             (Old No. CAN/2319/2015)

                             Asim Chandra Kumar.
                                       Vs
                         The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                     Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee, Ld. Sr. Adv.
                     Mr. R.P. Pal,
                     Ms. Indrani Pal,
                                        ...for the appellant.
                     Mr. Soumitra Bhattacharyya,
                     Mr. Aniruddha Sen,
                                  ...for the State Respondents.

This is an appeal against a judgment and order

dated October 30, 2014 whereby W.P. No. 12720(W) of

2010 was dismissed.

The writ petitioner challenged a notice dated

June 13, 1979 issued by the respondent authorities.

By such notice the writ petitioner was informed that

certain lands described in the schedule to the notice,

of which the writ petitioner was the owner, had been

requisitioned by the authorities under Rule 75A of the

Defence of India Rules for the purpose of maintaining

supply and services essential to the life of the

community. The requisition continued under the West

Bengal Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers)

Act, 1951. By the said notice, in exercise of power

under Section 5(1) of the said Act, the Collector of the

concerned district called upon the writ petitioner to

show-cause within fifteen days from the date of service

of the said notice as to why the plots of land in

question, should not be acquired. The date of hearing

mentioned in the notice was August 1, 1979.

The acquisition process was carried to its logical

conclusion. An award has also been made for a sum

of Rs.11,09,000/- approximately. The appellant says

that he has not received any money from the

Government. According to him, the land in question,

is worth about Rs. 5,00,00,000/- presently. Even as

on the date of acquisition i.e. in the year 1979, the

land was worth about Rs. 37,00,000/-.

Learned advocate for the appellant says that the

awarded amount is a pittance compared to the actual

value of the land. Either compensation should be

enhanced or the land, or part of the land at least,

should be released in favour of the appellant since the

entirety of the land has not been put to any use by the

Government.

These are matters which we are unable to

consider. It was open to the appellant to move the

appropriate forum either for enhancement of the

awarded amount or otherwise challenging the awarded

amount. If it is still open to the appellant to take such

steps in accordance with law, he is at liberty to do so.

The question of this Court directing the Government to

release part of the acquired land in favour of the

appellant does not arise. In fact, there is no provision

in the Land Acquisition Act for release of the land in

favour of the person from whom it was acquired.

The learned Single Judge noted that the writ

petitioner/appellant was taking mutually inconsistent

stands. On the one hand he was saying that the

acquisition was bad in law and on the other hand he

was saying that the awarded amount was inadequate

and should be enhanced. The learned Judge recorded

that the appellant had approached various authorities

with his prayer for release of the land from acquisition

on the ground that market value of the land is

immense and the awarded amount is negligible

compared to such value. Ultimately, the learned

Single Judge held that the purported challenge to the

acquisition after twenty four years is impermissible.

We find no infirmity in the reasoning or

conclusion of the learned Single Judge. We find no

reason to interfere with the order under appeal.

F.M.A. 1620 of 2015 is, accordingly, dismissed

along with the connected application being I.A.

No.CAN/1/2015 (Old No.2319 of 2015).

However, this will not prevent the appellant/writ

petitioner from making appropriate representation

before the competent authority regarding his request

for release of the land in question or portion thereof. If

such representation is made within a month from

date, the competent authority shall consider and

dispose of the same, in accordance with law, within a

period of four months from the receipt of such

representation, after giving an opportunity of hearing

to the appellant or his authorized representative. The

decision so taken shall be communicated to the

appellant within a week from the date of the decision.

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.

(Kausik Chanda, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)