Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M. Ramgopal & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 September, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen
WPA 4343 of 2016
M. Ramgopal & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioners : Mr. Sudip Sanyal
Mr. Sukanta Das
Mrs. Tutun Das
Mr. Chandrachur Lahiri
Mrs. Anulekha Bera
For W.B.I.D.C. : Mr. Suddhadev Adak
For the State : Ms. Bratati Roy Chowdhury
Mr. Atarul Hoque Molla
Heard on : 20.09.2024
Judgement on : 20.09.2024
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:
1. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have
prayed for an appropriate order directing the respondents
to return the acquired land in plot nos. 150 and 160 in
Mouza - Sadatpur, J.L. No. 89 under Police Station -
Kharagpur with an alternative prayer to pay adequate
compensation in terms of the provisions of Section 24 of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 2013".
2. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the aforesaid two
plots have been acquired by the State/respondents
pursuant to a notification dated December 31, 1974 and
the respondent no. 2 being the requiring body was
handed over the entire plots of land for establishment of a
scooter factory by M/s. IMECO Ltd. It is the grievance of
the petitioners that though the entire plot no. 150 and
substantial portion of plot no. 160 of the aforesaid Mouza
have been allotted to the said company i.e., M/s. IMECO
Ltd. but the balance portion of the acquired land in plot
no. 160 is still under the possession of the respondent no.
2/corporation being the requiring body.
3. It was further submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners
that even after completion of process of acquisition, the
aforementioned two plots have not been used either for
any public purpose or for establishment of any factory
and on the contrary, the respondent no. 2/corporation
are allowing private individual to occupy the remaining
portion of the said acquired land. It has also been
submitted that several registered deeds have been
executed in respect of the remaining portion of the plot
no. 160 though entire plot no. 150 and 160 have been
acquired by the respondent/State for public purpose.
4. Based on such allegation, this Court by an order dated
11.06.2024 had called for a report from the Additional
District Magistrate (LR), Paschim Medinipur.
5. The Additional District Magistrate (LR), Paschim
Medinipur has submitted his report on 01.08.2024.
6. Drawing attention to the said report dated 26.07.2024, it
is submitted by Mr. Sanyal that from Page No. 4 of the
said report dated 26.07.2024, it would reveal that in
respect of plot no. 160, two separate sale deeds have been
executed in favour of one Aal Amin Mission on
04.11.2011 and 03.11.2011 respectively. It is further
submitted that from the said report, it would reveal
further that 1.36 acre of land in plot no. 160 has been
recorded in favour of one Rokia Bibi and she possesses
1.49 acre of land and the remaining 0.24 acre of land in
plot no. 160 is possessed by the writ petitioners.
7. It is thus submitted by Mr. Sanyal that from the said
report, it would reveal that even after acquisition, a
substantial portion of acquired land, more specifically,
plot no. 160 has been transferred to some private
institution and/or private individual and thus, it reveals
that the acquired land is not used for any public purpose
and in a clandestine manner, the same is being used
and/or transferred either to private institution or private
individual. It is thus submitted by Mr. Sanyal that since
the very purpose of the acquisition has been foiled at the
instance of the State/respondents as well as the
respondent no. 2 (requiring body) an appropriate order
may be passed for return of the acquired land in the
aforementioned two plots to the writ petitioners.
Alternatively, the State may be directed to pay adequate
further compensation as per the provision of the said Act
of 2013.
8. Per contra, Mr. Adak, learned advocate for the respondent
no. 2 submits before this Court that the instant writ
petition is ex facie not maintainable. It is submitted by
Mr. Adak that it is a settled principle of law that when a
land has been acquired for public purpose after paying
due compensation to the land looser, the acquired land
got vested with the government and there is no provision
of law for retuning the same to the land looser again. In
course of his submission, Mr. Adak places his reliance
upon an unreported judgment dated 10.05.2024 as
passed by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in MAT
919 of 2023 (Sri Tapas Kumar Maity & Ors. Vs. The
State of West Bengal & Ors.).
9. After careful consideration of the entire materials as
placed before this Court and after hearing the learned
advocates for the contending parties, it is found
undisputed that the entire plot nos. 150 and 160 with an
area of 2.88 acres and 2.5 acres respectively were
acquired by the State/respondent and compensation was
paid to the writ petitioners and/or their predecessors-in-
interest in connection with Act II L.A. Case No. 54 of
1974-75. It is further admitted position that the land
situated in the aforementioned two plots have been
acquired for the respondent no. 2 who is the requiring
body in the said land acquisition. Materials have been
placed before this Court that after acquisition, the entire
plot nos. 150 and 160 have been handed over to the
respondent no. 2/corporation for some public purpose.
10. This Court finds sufficient justification in the submission
of Mr. Sanyal since it reveals from the report dated
26.07.2024 as submitted by ADM (LR), Paschim
Medinipur which that by virtue of three registered sale
deeds being sale deed nos. 7045 dated 04.11.2011 and
7002 dated 03.11.2011 registered with ADSR, Khargapur
and by another sale deed no. 10120 dated 13.12.2016
registered with DSR - I, Medinipur 0.90 acres of land was
transferred in the name of one Aal Amin Mission and the
name of the said Aal Amin Mission was recorded in the
LRROR. The said report further reflects that in plot no.
160, 1.36 acre of land was recorded in favour of the Rokia
Bibi and the remaining 0.2 acres of land in respect of plot
no. 160 is still recorded in the name of the writ
petitioners and they are actually possessing the same.
11. This Court is really astonished as to how a portion of the
acquired land would be transferred in the name of some
third parties since the same has been acquired for the
respondent no. 2/authority.
12. At this juncture, a question arises as to whether on
account of such transfer by execution of three sale deeds,
the acquisition process as started in the year 1974/75
and concluded soon thereafter after paying due
compensation to the land losers can be ordered to be
taken back and the same can be directed to be returned
to the land losers.
13. In considered view of this Court, the aforementioned
question has been well-answered by the Hon'ble Division
Bench in the aforementioned unreported decision Sri
Tapas Kumar Maity & Ors. (supra) in the manner
indicated hereunder:
"14. ................................However, as we have
discussed above, there is sufficient material on
record to show that possession of the land was
taken over by the State. The land was handed
over to the beneficiary which has been utilized
for industrial purpose. In any event, the
appellants/their predecessors having accepted
compensation without reservation, these issues
cannot be permitted to be agitated by them at
this distant point of time.
15. .........................................
16. In those facts and circumstances of the case,
the case of the appellants that the Government
should be directed to return the concerned land
to them upon their refunding the compensation
amount, cannot be accepted at all. There is no
merit in the claim of the appellants. Once the
land has vested in the Government, the law
does not permit return of the same to the land
owner. Even if the public purpose for which the
land was acquired, has failed, still the land
owner cannot claim back possession or
ownership of the land. The acquired land may
be used by the State for some other public
purpose. This is the settled law of the land."
14. In view of the settled principle of law as discussed supra,
this Court thus finds that there is no law by which this
Court directs the State/respondent to return the acquired
land to the land losers which has been acquired by the
State by paying due compensation.
15. This Court thus finds no merit in the instant writ petition.
16. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed.
17. Before parting with, this Court considers that justice
would be sub-served if an enquiry is directed to be made
by the ADM (General), Paschim Medinipur as to how a
substantial portion of plot no. 160 in Mouza- Sadatpur in
J.L. No. 89 has been transferred in the name of one Aal
Amin Mission and as to how another substantial portion
is occupied by one Rokia Bibi as well as by the writ
petitioners.
18. This Court thus directs the Additional District Magistrate
(General), Paschim Medinipur to cause a threadbare
enquiry in this regard and in the event the said Additional
District Magistrate (General), Paschim Medinipur finds
any foul play in the said transfer, he shall take
appropriate steps in accordance with law including a
criminal action against the person(s) responsible.
19. The enquiry by the ADM (General), Paschim Medinipur is
to be concluded positively within two months from the
date of communication of this order and in the event, any
foul play is noticed by him, he shall take appropriate legal
action forthwith thereafter.
20. The Additional District Magistrate (General), Paschim
Medinipur is further directed to take appropriate steps for
eviction of all illegal occupiers from the acquired plot no.
160 in accordance with law.
21. Learned advocate for the State is hereby requested to
communicate this order to the District Magistrate,
Paschim Medinipur at the earliest.
22. Department is further directed to forward a copy of this
judgment both to the District Magistrate, Paschim
Medinipur as well as to the Additional District Magistrate
(General), Paschim Medinipur for their immediate
compliance.
23. With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ
petition being WPA 4343 of 2016 is disposed of.
24. 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.)
Sourav
A.R. (Court)
