Sri Motilal Mondal & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4400 Cal

20.07.2023
Item No.21
Ct. No.5
CHC

                             M.A.T. 809 of 2023
                             IA NO: CAN/1/2023

                          Sri Motilal Mondal & ors.
                                      Vs.
                            Union of India & ors.


               Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate
               Ms. Usha Maiti
                                   ...for the appellants

               Mr. Lalit Moham Mahata, Ld. A.G.P.
               Mr. Supratim Dhar
                                   ...for the State


                     The appeal is directed against a judgment

             and order dated December 6, 2022 passed in

             W.P.A.10205 of 2001.

                     Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

             appellants submits that, the award was beyond the

             time prescribed under Section 11A of the Land

             Acquisition Act, 1894. He refers to the pleadings of

             the stay petition at paragraph 23 in support of his

             contention. According to him, the award was passed

             69 days beyond the time prescribed under Section

             11A of the Act of 1894. He draws the attention of the

             Court to the contents of the impugned judgment and

             order. He submits that the issue as to whether the

             award in question was published beyond the time

             prescribed under Section 11A of the Act of 1894 or
                      2




not was raised before the Trial Court and was decided

erroneously as against the appellants. He submits

that, there were two writ petitions where, orders of

injunction subsisted being W.P. No.3078(W) of 1998

and W.P.9114(W) of 1998. He contends that, in

respect of W.P.3078(W) of 1998 the interim order was

vacated on May 17, 2000 and that, the injunction

order in the other writ petition was vacated on July

26, 2002.

         State is represented.

         Since, the stay petition contains details of

calculation of limitation under Section 11A of the Act

of 1894, and since, issues with regard to limitation in

relation to two writ petitions are raised in this appeal,

and since the issue of limitation is a mixed question

of fact and law it would be appropriate to afford the

respondents    one       opportunity to file   affidavit-in-

opposition.

Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within four

(04) weeks from date. Reply, if any, be filed within a

week thereafter.

List the stay application along with appeal

under the same heading six (06) weeks hence.

Appellants will prepare an informal paper-

book incorporating all papers relied upon by the

learned Trial Judge and filed the same.

At this stage, it is agreed at the bar that all

papers used before the learned Trial Judge are

already available with the stay petition.

The stay petition may be treated as informal

paper-book. Parties are at liberty to annexe any other

paper that they wish to rely upon at the time of

hearing with their affidavits.

There subsist an order of status quo passed

on May 18, 2023. Prayer for extension of such order

is made.

In response to a query to the learned

advocates appearing on behalf of the parties as to

who is in possession, it is contended on behalf of the

State that the requiring authority is in possession of

the property concerned and that, the land was put

into use.

Contention of the Sate with regard to

possession is being disputed by the appellants.

Be that as it may it would be appropriate to

restrain the parties from making any construction

over the land involved without prior leave of the

Court.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)