Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Amiyo Guria vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 April, 2023
04.04.2023
Item No.14
Court No.6.
S. De
M.A.T. 230 of 2023
with
I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023
Amiyo Guria.
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Syed Arif Ahmed,
...for the appellant.
Mr. Santanu Kr. Mitra,
Mr. Subhabrata Das,
...for the State.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the
appellant be kept with the records.
By consent of the parties the appeal and the
connected application are taken up together for
hearing.
A judgment and order dated January 11, 2023
whereby the appellant's writ petition being WPA 19747
of 2022 was dismissed, is the subject matter of
challenge in this appeal.
The appellant/writ petitioner approached the
learned Single Judge essentially claiming
compensation for a plot of land which belonged to his
mother. The learned Judge noted that the land in
question was gifted by the appellant's mother to the
Sabhapati, Kharagpur-II Panchayat Samiti and Nirbha
Adhikarik Kharagpur-II Panchayat Samiti by way of a
2
registered deed of gift dated March 19, 1990. Later,
the appellant's mother approached the Sabhapati,
Kharagpur-II Panchayat Samiti for compensation. Her
request not having been acceded to, she filed W.P. No.
2150(W) of 2010. A learned Single Judge directed the
Sabhapati of the said Panchayat Samiti to afford an
opportunity of hearing to the appellant's mother and
pass a reasoned order. Such a reasoned order was
passed on August 3, 2011. Taking a sympathetic
view, the Sabhapati of the said Panchayat Samiti came
to a decision that alternative land could be given to the
appellant's mother but she was not entitled to any
compensation or employment as per the applicable
Rules.
The present appellant approached the learned
Single Judge in this round of litigation eleven years
after such decision was taken by the Sabhapati of the
Kharagpur-II, Panchayat Samiti.
The learned Judge observed that not only that
the writ petitioner is guilty of undue delay and laches,
he is only one of the five legal heirs of late Tulsi Guria
who had gifted her land to the Panchayat. The other
legal heirs have not been impleaded as parties in the
writ petition. The gift was made by the appellant's
mother unconditionally by way of a registered deed. In
2011 on sympathetic consideration, the Sabhapati of
Kharagpur-II, Panchayat Samiti decided to allot
3
alternative land to the appellant's mother. Such offer
was not accepted by the appellant's mother or after
her demise by the appellant or other legal heirs of late
Tulsi Guria. The learned Judge concluded that the
writ petition cannot be entertained thirty years after
the appellant's mother gifted the land in question
unconditionally by way of a registered deed. The
learned Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this
appeal.
Learned advocate appearing for the
appellant/writ petitioner says that the appellant's
mother is still alive. The learned Single Judge has
erroneously described the appellant's mother as "late
Tulsi Guria". He further says that no action could be
taken from the end of the appellant or his mother on
the basis of the decision of the Sabhapati of
Kharagpur-II, Panchayat Samiti to give alternative plot
of land to the appellant's mother due to ignorance.
Neither the appellant nor his mother are literate
persons. Hence, the case of the appellant may be
considered favourably.
We have not called upon the respondents to
make submission.
We are in complete agreement with the
reasoning and conclusion reached by the learned
Single Judge. From the documents that were before
the learned Single Judge, it was clear that an
unconditional gift of the land in question was made by
the appellant's mother to the Panchayat Samiti in
question way back in the year 1990. In 2011 an
alternative plot of land was offered to the appellant's
mother. She did not accept that. Today, i.e. more
than thirty-two years after the gift and more than
eleven years after the Sabhapati, Kharagpur-II,
Panchayat Samiti offered to give an alternative plot of
land to the appellant's mother, any claim on account
of compensation cannot be entertained. There was
nothing on record before the learned Single Judge to
show that there was any promise or assurance meted
out by the State respondents to the appellant's mother
or to the appellant is that in consideration of the gift of
the land in question, the appellant's mother or any of
her children would be given a job or monetary
compensation.
Learned advocate for the appellant says that
after disposal of the writ application, his client has
discovered certain documents which clearly support
his client's claim for compensation or alternative plot
of land. Admittedly, such documents were not before
the learned Single Judge and hence, we are not
inclined to consider such documents. However, if the
appellant is entitled in law to approach the learned
Single Judge with such documents for reconsideration
of his case, dismissal of this appeal per se will not
preclude him from doing so. However, this order will
not be construed as granting leave or permission to
the appellant to approach the learned Single Judge for
reconsideration of his case.
We find no infirmity in the order under appeal
as would warrant our interference. Accordingly, the
appeal being MAT 230 of 2023 is dismissed along with
the application being I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023, treating
the same as on day's list.
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.
(Prasenjit Biswas, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
