Timir Baran Pramanick vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 7200 Cal

Form J(2)     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                             Appellate Side

Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

                          WPA 24344 of 2023

                      Timir Baran Pramanick
                               Vs.
                  The State of West Bengal and Ors.



For the petitioner           :     Ms. Reshmi Ghosh
                                   Ms. Barnali Gantait

For the State                :     Mr. Chandi Charan De,
                                         Addl. Govt. Pleader
                                   Mr. Anirban Sarkar


Item No. 09

Heard & Judgement on                     :     17.10.2023

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

Indisputably by an acquisition proceeding the land of the

predecessor-in-interest was acquired under the provision of the Act I

of 1894 sometimes in 1968-69 for Salt Lake Reclamation Project.

It is the case of the petitioner that a piece of land measuring

about 3.59 acres was not required in the said project. The said fact

was intimated by the Executive Engineer, Salt Lake Reclamation

Division to the Assistant Secretary, Government of West Bengal,

Metropolitan Development Department. It is clearly stated that the

land measuring about 3.59 acres situated in such a position where the

operation of reclamation work was difficult to proceed and also found

not necessary for the project. So, the said land was lying in

unclaimed position as before and it was kept outside the boundary of

the project. Subsequently, the Deputy Secretary, Land and Land

Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal issued a letter to

the L.A. Collector, North 24 Parganas to transfer process of the said

land in favour of the person from whom acquisition was made. It is

also stated by the petitioners that the acquisition was made only on

paper all along the petitioner and before him his predecessor-in-

interest was in physical possession of the said land. In spite of such

decision having been taken by the State Respondents and for

initiation of process of transferring his land in favour of the petitioner

the Collector directed the petitioner to deposit the compensation

amount which was actually paid and received by the L.A. Collector.

The State Respondents were delaying return of the said land in favour

of the petitioner. This led the petitioner to file WP No.21972(W) of

1999. The said writ petition was disposed of on 12 th September, 2005

by a Co-ordinate Bench holding, inter alia, that the acquisition

proceeding had terminated long ago and the acquired land stood

vested in the Government. Therefore, there is no scope for the

petitioner to get back said land which has been vested to the State by

acquisition process. Accordingly, the said writ petition was dismissed.

However, the Collector, North 24 Parganas was directed to refund

compensation amount of Rs.5616.37/- to the persons who deposited

such sum to the legal heirs and representatives as the case may be

with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum to be paid for the

period from December 21, 1994 to December 06, 1999. It is pointed

out by the learned advocate for the petitioner that though L.A.

Collector tendered the said amount, the petitioner did not receive it.

Subsequently, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said

judgment of WP No.21972(W) of 1999. The said appeal was

registered as FMA 1882 of 2006. The Division Bench of this Court

dismissed the appeal on contest. Thus, the judgment in the above

numbered writ petition by a Single Bench was affirmed. Assailing the

said judgment the petitioner in Indore Development Authority versus

Manoharlal and Others filed an I.A. No. 170346 of 2019 before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, the learned counsel sought for

permission to withdraw the said application with liberty to file an

appropriate application to initiate independent proceedings.

Accordingly, the said application was rejected giving liberty to the

petitioner to initiate independent proceedings with a direction that

when such an application is filed, it shall be considered in accordance

with law and on its own merits.

After disposal of IA No. 170346 of 2019 by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, the petitioner has preferred the instant appeal with a prayer to

issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents

to release 3.59 acres of land immediately recorded in C.S. plot No.

4430/6284 at Mouza Krishnapur and Mahishbathan, North 24

Parganas. The petitioner has also prayed for cancellation and/or

recession of the letter dated 6th December, 1999 issued by the State

Respondents.

It is contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that

as per the decision taken by the competent officers in the State

Government the land in question is required to be resettled and

relinquished in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the L.A.

Collector informed the petitioner that the subject land was acquired

and vested to the State and, therefore, the said land cannot be

resettled in favour of the petitioner. The learned advocate for the

petitioner submits that the subject land was not acquired in

accordance with the provision of Act I of 1894. Acquisition is complete

on declaration of award. In the instant case award was declared and

admittedly paid to the petitioner. Subsequently, L.A. Collector held

that the subject land is not required for any public purpose and it

would be resettled in favour of the petitioner. On this score, L.A.

Collector directed the petitioner to deposit the compensation amount

with the Collectorate. He deposited the entire compensation amount

in the treasury. Moreover, till date physical possession of the land has

not been taken by the acquiring authority. Thus, the petitioner is

entitled to get back the land in question. In the alternative he is

entitled to get fair compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement

under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013.

The learned Additional Government Pleader has opposed the

prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted by him that

once a property vests in the State, it cannot be divested. There is no

provision in Act I of 1894 for relinquishment of vested land in favour

of the land owner. It appears from the order passed in WP 21972 (W)

of 1999 that a Co-ordinate Bench held that the petitioner is only

entitled to compensation and directed the State Respondents to repay

the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per

annum. Thus, this order was affirmed by the Division Bench. Thus,

the issue relating to vesting of subject land and question of payment

of compensation has been finally settled. Thus, question cannot be

reopened at this stage.

Having heard the learned advocates for the petitioner and the

State Respondents and on careful perusal of entire materials on

record I find that the acquisition proceeding in respect of subject land

was complete and the land was vested in the State. Therefore, there

is no scope for relinquishment of the subject land or any part thereof

specially when the acquisition proceeding was concluded by publishing

the award and payment made thereunder. This Court also finds that

Section 24(2) is not applicable under the facts and circumstances of

this case because of the fact that the subject land was vested to the

State and compensation has been paid. It is immaterial as to whether

the petitioner accepted the compensation or award once award is

published after vesting of land. Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency Act, 2013 has no manner of

application.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the

instant writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is

dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)