Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Calcutta Electric Manufacturing Co. ... vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 September, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen
WPA 22572 of 2014
Calcutta Electric Manufacturing Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioners : Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A. K. Gayen
Mr. A. A. Gayen
For the State : Mr. Chandi Charan Dey
Mr. K. N. Nabi
For the respondent no. 5 : Mr. Satyajit Talukdar
Mr. Arindon Chatterjee
Heard on : 12.09.2024
Judgment on : 12.09.2024
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:
1. In this writ petition the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of
writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to
demarcate the plots of land as acquired by them pursuant to
Gazette notification dated 15.04.1985 upon proper survey,
issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to pay
compensation of land acquisition on behalf of the requiring body
and for other ancillary reliefs.
2. In course of his submission Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior
Advocate on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws
attention of this Court to the exception to the reports dated
25.07.2019, 13.12.2023, 18.01.2024 and 30.01.2024 as filed by
Land Acquisition Collector (General and HIT), Howrah and as
affirmed on 21.08.2024 which is filed today and is taken on record.
3. Drawing attention to page Nos. 56 and 57 of the -said exception it
is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the subject matter of the
instant writ petition is L.A. Case Nos. 18/1A and 18/B (Act-II) of
the K.M.D.A. of 1975-76 of Kona Expressway Project now utilized
for construction of Santragachi Bus Stand. It is submitted by Mr.
Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioners that on
conjoint perusal of the page Nos. 56 and 57 to the aforementioned
exception being a copy of the letter dated 01.07.2015 as written by
Collector, Howrah it would reveal that the Collector of Howrah send
two estimates of Rs. 6,89,97,607/- and another of Rs. 2,74,353/-
to the Joint Secretary, L&LR Department for approval towards the
cost of acquisition of land involving the aforementioned two L.A.
case numbers.
4. Drawing attention to page No. 41 to the exception as filed today it is
submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that all on a sudden a tentative award
was passed on 31.12.2023 to the tune of Rs. 6,41,17,119/- being
the total estimated amount of the cost of acquisition in respect of
the acquired lands involved in the aforementioned L.A. cases.
5. Mr. Chatterjee further submits that from page Nos. 8 to 12 of the
aforesaid exception being a letter of the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Howrah Improvement Trust dated 25.07.2019 it would
reveal that in respect of the aforementioned two cases two separate
estimates of Rs. 6,89,97,607/- and Rs. 2,74,353/- were forwarded.
It is further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that while passing the
tentative award no reason has been assigned as to what prompted
the respondent authorities to reduce the amount of award which is
payable to the petitioners.
6. In course of his submission Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits further
before this Court that from page Nos. 18 and 19 of the exception it
would reveal that the aforesaid L.A. Case Nos. 18/1A and 18/1B
covers the entire plots of land measuring about 50.45 acres as has
been mentioned in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the writ petition. It is
thus submitted that the quantum of award as assessed by the
respondent authorities which is available at page No. 41 of the
aforementioned exception is not only wrong on the basis of the
calculated amount but also the same is defective with regard to the
quantum of area acquired by the respondent authorities.
7. It is thus submitted by Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate
that in view of the aforementioned facts as placed before this Court
the writ petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
8. Per contra, Mr. Talukdar, learned Advocate for the
K.M.D.A./respondent No. 5 at the very outset draws attention of
this Court to the orders passed by this Court on 25.08.2014,
12.11.2014, 19.11.2014, 04.03.2015 and 30.08.2023. It is
submitted by Mr. Talukdar that on conjoint perusal of the
aforementioned five orders as discussed supra it would reveal that
during the pendency of the writ petition an order was passed for
submission of compliance report by the concerned BL&LRO. The
said compliance report was filed on 19.11.2014. On the said day
this Court granted liberty to the writ petitioner to verify the said
report regarding its correctness and by an order dated 30.08.2023
it has been recorded by this Court that no objection was raised by
the petitioners with regard to the genuineness of the said report
and by the self-same order this Court made an endeavor to
ascertain as to whether the petitioners were paid compensation in
respect of 2.36 acres of land acquired by the State authorities.
9. In his second fold of submission Mr. Talukdar, learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the K.M.D.A./respondent No. 5 being the
requiring body draws attention of this Court to the report dated
29.01.2024 which has been annexed at page No. 14 of the
exception as filed today. It is submitted by Mr. Talukdar that from
page No. 16 of the said exception being the copy of the compliance
report of BL&LRO it would reveal that subject plot numbers of the
writ petitioner are R.S. plot Nos. 3832, 3833 and 3851. It is further
submitted that from page No. 16 of the said exception it would
reveal that out of the said three plots 0.65 acres + 0.43 acres + 0.84
acres totaling to 1.92 acres of land was acquired for industrial
purpose whereas 0.20 acres and 0.24 acres totaling to 0.44 acres
was acquired for other purpose and the sum total of the acquired
land of the petitioners comes to 2.36 acres.
10. Drawing attention to page No. 31 of the writ petition it is further
submitted by Mr. Talukdar that the genuineness of the compliance
report dated 17.11.2014 as filed on 19.11.2014 cannot be doubted
in the event the same is compared with the Gazette notification
dated 15.04.1985 which is available from page No. 31 of the writ
petition which discloses the self-same aforementioned three plot
numbers.
11. It is thirdly submitted by Mr. Talukdar, learned Advocate for the
K.M.D.A./respondent No. 5 that the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Howrah Improvement Trust had assigned sufficient reason
to assess the estimate to the tune of Rs. 6,41,17,119/- instead of
two separate estimates of Rs. Rs. 6,89,97,607/- and Rs. 2,74,353/-
which are available at page Nos. 51 and 53 of the exception.
12. It is lastly submitted that from the estimate as available from page
No. 41 of the exception it would also reveal that the calculation of
the new estimate to the tune of Rs. 6,41,17,119/- has been done
on the basis of calculation of acquired land of 2.71 acres instead of
2.36 acres. It is thus submitted by Mr. Talukdar that since the
aforementioned sum of Rs. 6,41,17,119/- has already been
disbursed in favour of the writ petitioners during the pendency of
the writ petition the writ petitioners are not entitled to any further
relief.
13. Mr. Chandi Charan Dey, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the respondents/State adopted the submission of Mr. Talukdar.
He also submits that no further relief may be granted to the writ
petitioners as prayed for.
14. On perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and
after giving due consideration over the submissions of the learned
Advocates for the contending parties it appears to this Court that
within the four corners of the writ petition as filed before this Court
the writ petitioners have not mentioned about the plot numbers
which according to him were acquired by the respondent
authorities for respondent No. 5 being the requiring body.
Admittedly, it is the case of the writ petitioners that pursuant to the
Gazette notification dated 15.04.1985, 50.45 acres of land of the
writ petitioners were acquired by the respondent authorities and
that the respondent authorities have not paid the compensation for
such acquisition and they had also not demarcated plots of lands
so acquired by them.
15. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Talukdar that on conjoint perusal of
the photocopy of the relevant notification dated 15.04.1985 as
available at page No. 31 of the writ petition and the report dated
17.11.2014 as submitted by BL&LRO on 19.11.2024 pursuant to
the direction of this Court, it would reveal that amongst other plots
of the writ petitioners in R.S. Plot Nos. 3832, 3833 and 3851 a sum
total of 2.36 acres of land was acquired by the respondent
authorities pursuant to the Gazette notification dated 15.04.1985
which are admittedly the subject matter of L.A. Case Nos. 18/1A
and 18/1B (Act-II) of the K.M.D.A. of 1975-76 as reveals from page
No. 4 of the aforementioned exception.
16. In course of hearing Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate was
very vocal with the quantum of award dated 31.12.2023 to the tune
of Rs. 6,41,17,119/- since from the letter dated 01.07.2015 as
available at page No. 56 of the aforementioned exception it would
reveal that two estimates have been made to the tune of Rs.
6,89,97,607/- and Rs. 2,74,353/- being the value of the acquired
lands in question.
17. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate further submits that in the
award dated 31.12.2023 no reason has been assigned as to what
prompted the respondent authorities to reduce the quantum of the
award.
18. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Talukdar, learned Advocate for the
respondent No. 5 that from the status report of the Special Land
Acquisition Officer of the State as has been annexed with the
exception as referred as above at page Nos. 51 to 53 sufficient
reasons has been assigned for cancellation of the tentative estimate
of Rs. 6,89,97,607/- plus Rs. 2,74,353/- and for preparing fresh
estimate of Rs. 6,41,17,119/-.
19. Being a writ court, this Court has got no tools and machineries to
assess as to whether the compensation assessed by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer and as has been awarded vide order dated
31.12.2023 is correct or not and the same is not the subject matter
of the instant writ petition. However, sufficient materials have been
placed that the respondent authorities have been able to
substantiate the quantum of land acquired from the writ
petitioners and they have also placed materials before this Court
that the assessed amount of compensation has been duly
disbursed to the writ petitioners.
20. In view of the discussion made hereinabove this Court thus finds
that the writ petitioners have already obtained the relief as prayed
for in this writ petition and, therefore, they are not entitled to any
further relief as prayed for.
21. With the aforementioned observation, the instant writ petition
being WPA 22572 of 2014 is disposed of.
22. Since Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate for the writ
petitioners submits before this Court that quantum of
compensation as awarded to the writ petitioners is substantially
low, liberty is given to the writ petitioners to challenge the quantum
of award in an appropriate proceeding, if so advised and in the
event the writ petitioners initiates such legal proceeding, he will be
entitled to get the relief under Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act
because of the pendency of the instant proceeding.
23. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary
formalities.
(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)
Suvayan Ghosh
A.R. (Court)
