Supriya Dutta vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2643 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Supriya Dutta vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 17 September, 2025

                                                                          2015:CHC-OS:47




                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                             ORIGINAL SIDE
Present :-
The Hon'ble Justice PARTHA SARATHI SEN
                              WPO 624 of 2008
                IA NO: GA/2/2008 (Old No: GA/2195/2008)

                                     Supriya Dutta
                                           -Vs-
                            The State of West Bengal and Ors.

For the Petitioner:             Mr.Kushal Chatterjee, Adv.,
                                Mr. Biswajyoti Mitra, Adv.,

For the State:                  Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, Ld. AGP.,
                                Mr. Ziaul Haque, Adv.

For respondent/ KMDA:           Mr. Kishore Datta, Senior Adv.,

Mr. Satyajit Talukdar, Adv., Mr. Avishek Guha, Adv.

Mr. Subhajit Das, Adv.

Hearing concluded on:                  09.09.2025.
Judgment on:                           17.09.2025.

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : -

1. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have prayed

for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities

prohibiting them to take possession and/or creating any disturbance

and/or causing any interference with regard to the writ petitioner's

possession in respect of the land being RS Plot nos. 3777, 3775 and 3788

along with other ancillary reliefs.

2. At the time of hearing Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing

on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this

2015:CHC-OS:47

Court to page nos. 20a, 21a and 22a of the instant writ petition being the

copies of three RS ROR in respect of the aforementioned three plots of

land as stood in the name of one Prafulla Kumari Dutta.

3. Drawing attention to paragraph no.9 of the instant writ petition it is

submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that it is the specific case of the writ

petitioner that the said three plots of land were never vested and thus

those three plots of land were never in possession either with the State

and its instrumentalities or with the KMDA authority, the requiring body.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that it is the further case of the

writ petitioner that the writ petitioner has come to know that the KMDA

Authority has hung up a sign board in the name of one M/s Haldiram

over the said three plots of land of the writ petitioner which was however

pulled down.

5. It is contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that it is further case

of the writ petitioner that in respect of the said three plots of land no

acquisition proceeding was ever initiated. It is further submitted by Mr.

Chatterjee that from page no. 27 of the instant writ petition being a copy

of memo dated 02.09.1996 it would reveal that under the cover of the said

memo dated 02.09.1996 the KMDA authority issued a notice to the said

Prafulla Kumari Dutta asking her to furnish original deed and other

related documents in respect of the structure as standing on the said

three plots of land which according to the writ petitioner was duly

complied with.

2015:CHC-OS:47

6. Drawing attention to page no.28 of the instant writ petition it is

further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that under cover of a memo dated

06.03.1999 the KMDA authority intimated the said Prafulla Kumari Dutta

that it has decided to bring those three plots of land under primary

notification under Section 4 of Act II of 1894. It is further submitted by

Mr. Chatterjee that it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that at no

material point of time, in respect of the aforementioned three plots of

land, any notice under Section 3 of Act II of 1948 was published and

gazetted.

7. Drawing attention to page nos. 29 and 30 of the instant writ

petition being a copy of the information slip as filed by one Babu Dutta,

the Superintendent of LA Office, Calcutta intimated that the

aforementioned three plots in Mauza Kasba were not affected by any LA

proceeding in between the period 1984 to 16.05.1995. It is further

submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that even from page no.31 of the instant writ

petition it would reveal that by issuing a memo dated 07.01.2001

Collector, South-24-Parganas has passed an order for cancellation of a

mistaken order of requisition under West Bengal Act III of 1984 in respect

of certain portions in RS Dag nos.3775 and 3777 and in respect of the

entire portion of RS Dag no. 3788.

8. At this juncture Mr. Chatterjee draws attention of this Court to the

affidavit-in-opposition as filed by the respondent/State. Drawing attention

to paragraph 6(c) of the said affidavit-in-opposition it is submitted by Mr.

Chatterjee though it is the specific averment of the respondent/State that

2015:CHC-OS:47

in respect of the aforementioned three plots of land notice under Section

4(1a) of Act II of 1948 was published on 17.10.1974 however, from page

no.31 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the memo dated

07.01.2001 it would reveal that the notice under Section 3 of the said Act-

II of 1948 was served upon the land losers in between 1978 and 1984. It

is thus submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that in view of such discrepancy there

cannot be any hesitation to hold that the alleged acquisition under Act II

of 1948 is nothing but a myth.

9. Drawing attention to page no.14 of the affidavit-in-opposition as

filed on behalf of the respondent/State it is further submitted by Mr.

Chatterjee that though in such affidavit-in-opposition a copy of the notice

under Section 4(1a) of Act II of 1948 was disclosed however, the

respondent/State has miserably failed to produce any notification of

requisition under Section 3 of Act II of 1948. It is thus submitted by Mr.

Chatterjee that in absence of any valid requisition, there cannot be any

valid acquisition within the meaning of Section 4(1a) of Act II of 1948.

10. In his next fold of submission Mr. Chatterjee draws attention of this

Court to page no.59 of the affidavit-in-reply as filed by the writ petitioner

against the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by the KMDA authority. It is

thus submitted that from page no.59 of such affidavit-in-reply being a

copy of the memo dated 22.05.1997 as issued by the Secretary, Land and

Land Reforms Department, Land Acquisition (II) Branch informed the

secretaries of the various departments of the Government of West Bengal

to intimate his department as to whether all requiring departments are at

2015:CHC-OS:47

all interested in acquisition of land in which possession has been taken

under Section 3(1) of Act II of 1948. It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that

in all probabilities on account of such memo dated 22.05.1997 the

Collector, South-24-Parganas under cover of its memo dated 07.01.2021

passed an order for cancellation of requisition in respect of the

aforementioned three plots of land, a copy of which is available at page

no.31 of the instant writ petition.

11. At this juncture Mr. Chatterjee took me to page nos. 14 to 29 of the

affidavit-in-reply as filed by the writ petitioner against the affidavit-in-

opposition of the respondent/State. It is submitted that from the said

pages it would reveal that in a proceeding under Section 44 (2 a) of West

Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 only Khatiyan no.1627 was corrected

however, the other khatiyans being Khatiyan nos. 1153, 834 and 689 in

which the said three plots were there were not touched.

12. In course of his submission Mr. Chatterjee further draws attention

of this Court to page nos. 32 to 37 of the affidavit-in-reply as filed by the

writ petitioner against the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent/State

being a copy of the deed of license dated 22.05.2003. It is submitted

further that from internal page no.2 of the said deed of license it would

reveal that schedule mentioned land of the said license deed which is part

and parcel of the aforementioned three plots of land are still in the

process of requisition.

13. Mr. Chatterjee further draws attention of this Court to page no.47 of

the said affidavit-in-reply being internal page no.9 of the judgement dated

2015:CHC-OS:47

22.12.2014 as passed by the jurisdictional Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Alipore in Title Suit No.90 of 2009 (Haldiram vs. KMDA Authority

and Ors.) wherein it is the defence case that the title to the property of

the defendant (State) is yet to be cleared by the land acquisition

department.

14. Mr. Chatterjee then took me to the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by

the KMDA. Drawing attention to page no.12 of the said affidavit-in-

opposition it is submitted that from the copy of the indenture dated

22.01.1966 it would reveal that the said indenture discloses the purpose

of acquisition which is contrary to the said notification under Section 4

(1a) of Act II of 1948 and further the KMDA authority by entering into the

agreement with the M/s Haldiram has frustrated the very purpose of

alleged acquisition.

15. In course of his submission Mr. Chatterjee further draws attention

of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by the respondent/KMD

Authority. Drawing attention to paragraph no. 4C of the said affidavit-in-

opposition of KMD Authority it is submitted by Mr. Chatterejee that in

such affidavit-in-opposition though an averment was made regarding the

publication of notice under Section 4(1)(a) of act II of 1948 but there is no

whisper about the publication of any notice under Section 3 of Act II of

1948.

16. It is further contended by Mr. Chatterjee that on perusal of page

nos. 16 to 25 of the affidavit-in-opposition as filed on behalf of the

respondent/State it would reveal that the State has disclosed a copy of RS

2015:CHC-OS:47

ROR dated 01.11.2000 wherefrom it appears that the aforementioned plot

nos. 3777, 3775 and 3788 were recorded in Khatiyan no.689.

17. At this juncture attention of this Court is also drawn to page no.26A

of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent/State. It is submitted by

Mr. Chatterjee that from the said page it would reveal that from original

Khatiyan no. 1152, a khanda khatiyan (part khatiyan 2416) was created

and compensation was disbursed to the recorded raiyat, Kalpana Moitra

who at no material point of time was the owner of 0.31 decimals of land in

plot no.3775.

18. Drawing further attention to paragraph no. 6C of the affidavit-in-

opposition of the State it is further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that like

respondent/KMDA, the respondent/State though stated much about

publication of notice under Section 4(1a) of Act II of 1948 but in the

affidavit-in-opposition of the State also there was no whisper regarding

publication of notice under Section 3 of Act II of 1948.

19. In his next fold of submission Mr. Chatterjee contended that life

time of Act II of 1948 (un-amended) came to an end on 31.03.1994. It is

further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that in the case in hand the

acquisition started in 1973-74 and according to the respondent/State

notice under Section 4(1)(a) was published on 17.10.1974 and the award

under Section 11 of the said Act of 1894 was published in the year 1982-

1984.

20. It is thus submitted that in view of such chronology of events, by no

stretch of imagination it can be said that provision of Section 9 (3B) of Act

2015:CHC-OS:47

I of 1894 (as amended) has any manner of application in the alleged

acquisition proceeding.

21. Placing his reliance upon the reported decision of [The Collector of

Kamrup and Ors. vs. 1. Kamakhya Ram Barooah and Ors., 2.

Umakanta Goswami and Ors. and 3. Sushila Bala Debi and Ors.]

reported in AIR 1965 SC 1301 it is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that in

the said reported decision it has been categorically held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court that there cannot be any valid acquisition without valid

requisition as contemplated as per the provision of Assam Land

(Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 which according to Mr. Chatterjee

is almost similar to Act II of 1948.

22. Placing his reliance upon the decision in the case of Samarendra

Nath Paul and Ors. vs. Collector, Hooghly and Addl. District,

Magistrate and Ors. reported in 1996 SCC Online Cal 223 : (1997) 1

Cal LJ 370 it is argued by Mr. Chatterjee that a division bench of this

Court while considering the provisions of Section 3 of Act II of 1948 came

to a finding that the compliance of the provision of Section 3 of Act II of

Act 1948 is mandatory in nature.

23. In course of his argument Mr. Chatterjee again places his reliance

upon the affidavit-in-opposition of the KMDA. It is argued on behalf of the

writ petitioner that from page nos. 12 to 15 being a copy of the agreement

dated 22.01.1996 as has been executed by and between the Governor of

West Bengal and KMDA (then CMDA) it would reveal that in such

agreement it has been specifically disclosed that the purpose of

2015:CHC-OS:47

requisition and acquisition in respect of the aforementioned three plots

were for creation of better living conditions in rural and urban area by the

construction and reconstruction of dwelling place and for other purpose

enacted therewith and identical thereto.

24. It is further argued by Mr. Chatterjee that from page nos. 11 to 16

of the affidavit-in-reply as filed by the writ petitioner against the affidavit-

in-opposition of the KMDA, the writ petitioner has annexed a copy of the

deed of license dated 22.05.2023 wherefrom it would reveal that KMD

Authority had handed over a portion of the alleged acquired land to a

company for commercial purpose which is contrary to the purpose of

alleged original requisition and acquisition.

25. Placing his reliance upon the judgement as passed in the case of

Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and Anr. vs. G. Jayarama Reddy and

Ors. reported in (2011) 10 SCC 608 it is argued by Mr. Chatterjee that in

the said reported decision it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

that in the event it was discovered that the land which has been acquired

for public purpose cannot be permitted to be transferred to private

persons and in such case the Court has enormous power to nullify the

process of acquisition on the ground of fraud and misuse of the provisions

of the Act.

26. It is thus submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that for the sake of argument

even if it is accepted that the aforementioned three plots of land were

acquired in accordance with law this Court should not be hesitant to

nullify the entire process of acquisition on account of detection of fraud

2015:CHC-OS:47

on the part of the respondent/State since sufficient materials have been

placed before this Court to substantiate that subsequent to the alleged

acquisition the purpose of acquisition has been changed by the

respondent/State.

27. Placing his reliance upon the judgement as passed in the case of

State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. B.E Billimoria and Ors. reported

in (2003) 7 SCC 336 it is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that in the said

case the Hon'ble Apex Court expressly held that when a statutory

authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same

should have been done in that manner or not at all.

28. It is thus submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that it is a fit case of

allowing the instant writ petition by granting an appropriate relief/reliefs

as prayed for.

29. Per contra, Mr. Mahata, learned Additional Govt. Pleader appearing

on behalf of the respondent/State in course of his argument at the very

outset draws attention of this Court to page nos. 20a, 21a and 22a of the

writ petition. It is submitted by Mr. Mahata that the photocopy of the

record of rights as has been annexed at page nos. 20a, 21a and 22a are

suspicious in nature since on perusal of the copies of the said alleged RS

RoR it would reveal that attestation of those documents have been done

on 10.12.1983 and 16.12.1968 respectively. It is submitted by Mr.

Mahata that the date of attestation of those RS ROR was suspicious in

nature in view of the fact that much prior to the said date of attestation

RS RoR was finally published.

2015:CHC-OS:47

30. It is further submitted by Mr. Mahata that from the endorsement of

the bottom portions of page nos. 20a, 21a and 22a of the writ petition it is

found that the certified copies of the said RS RoRs were issued on the

basis of the record of rights finally published under Section 51A(2) of West

Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956 which itself creates a doubt with regard to

the genuineness of the said copies of RS RoRs as have been annexed at

page nos. 20a, 21a and 22a of the writ petition since certified copies of the

RS RoRs cannot be granted as per the provisions of West Bengal Land

Reforms Act,1956.

31. In his next fold of submission Mr. Mahata draws attention of this

Court to page nos. 16 to 25 of the affidavit-in-opposition as used by the

State being copies of the RS RORs in respect of the aforementioned three

plots of land as available with the office of the jurisdictional Land

Acquisition Collector.

32. It is submitted by Mr. Mahata that from the copies of RS RORs as

have been annexed at page nos. 16 to 25 of the affidavit-in-opposition of

the State it would reveal that the names of the rayats in respect of the

three plots of land are quite different from the alleged copies of the RS

RoRs as have been annexed with the instant writ petition.

33. It is further argued by Mr. Mahata in paragraph no.6(f) of the

affidavit-in-opposition of the State it is the specific case of the

respondent/State that record of rights as have been annexed with the

instant writ petition do not match with the record of rights as available

with the jurisdictional BL and LRO .

2015:CHC-OS:47

34. At this juncture Mr. Mahata draws attention of this Court to page

nos. 14 to 24 of the affidavit-in-reply as filed by the writ petitioner against

the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent/State.

35. It is submitted by Mr. Mahata that in a proceeding under Section

44(2a) of West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 the appropriate

authority being the jurisdictional officer came to a finding that the

corresponding RS/CS khatiyan in respect of the aforementioned three

plots of land are mismatched which indicates that the copies of the record

of rights as have been annexed at page nos. 20a, 21a and 22a of the writ

petition are not genuine.

36. In his next limb of submission Mr. Mahata draws attention of this

Court to paragraph nos.1 and 2 of the instant writ petition vis-à-vis the

genealogical table as has been annexed at page no.19 of the instant writ

petition. It is submitted by Mr. Mahata that the pleadings of the writ

petitioner are absolutely incomplete inasmuch as there is no averment in

the writ petition at all as to how the predecessor-in-interest of the present

writ petitioner Prafulla Kumari Dutta became the owner of the

aforementioned three plots.

37. It is further submitted by Mr. Mahata that there is no pleading at

all in the instant writ petition as to how the writ petitioner inherited the

aforementioned three plots of land as claimed to have been owned and

occupied by Prafulla Kumari Dutta.

38. It is further submitted by Mr. Mahata that in paragraph no.2 of the

instant writ petition though it is the case of the writ petitioner that the

2015:CHC-OS:47

said Prafulla Kumari Dutta passed away on 07.02.1950 however, from

page no. 28A of the writ petition being a copy of the memo dated

06.03.1999 as issued by the Special Secretary-II/CMDA addressed to the

said Prafulla Kumari Dutta it would reveal that the said memo dated

06.03.1999 was issued pursuant to a letter dated 09.01.1997 as written

by Prafulla Kumari Dutta.

39. It is thus submitted by Mr. Mahata that if it be the case of the writ

petitioner that Prafulla Kumari Dutta died on 07.02.1950 the said

Prafulla Kumari Dutta cannot write a letter to the said Special Secretary

on 09.01.1997 which indicates that the case of the writ petitioner is based

on forged documents.

40. Drawing attention to page no. 27 of the instant writ petition being a

copy of the memo dated 02.09.1996 as issued by the Executive Engineer,

CMDA (now KMDA) addressed to Prafulla Kumari Dutta it is further

submitted by Mr. Mahata that much after death of the said Prafulla

Kumari Dutta correspondences took place between the said Prafulla

Kumari Dutta and the officials of the KMDA even in the year 1996

whereas according to the writ petition Prafulla Kumari Dutta died in the

year 1950.

41. In course of his submission Mr. Mahata draws attention of this

Court to the affidavit portion of the instant writ petition. It is submitted

that the affidavit as has been sworn by the writ petitioner is itself

defective since in such affidavit the writ petitioner has not disclosed her

age.

2015:CHC-OS:47

42. Placing his reliance upon the judgement as passed in Resurgence

India vs. Election Commission of India and Anr. reported in (2014) 14

SCC 189 it is submitted by Mr. Mahata that in the said reported decision

it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that filing of affidavit with

blank particulars will render affidavit nugatory.

43. It is thus submitted by Mr. Mahata that since the affidavit as

affirmed by the petitioner is incomplete and since a writ petition is

disposed of upon exchange of affidavits, the writ petitioner is not entitled

to any relief as prayed for on account of incomplete affidavit which is

nugatory in nature.

44. Placing reliance upon the judgement as passed in Bharat Singh

and Ors. (supra) vs. The State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (1988)

4 SCC 534 it is argued by Mr. Mahata that in the reported decision of

Bharat Singh (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has expressly held that in

a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the

evidence in proof of such facts are to be pleaded and annexed with. It is

thus submitted by Mr. Mahata that since the writ petitioner has failed to

annex any document of title in respect of the aforementioned three plots

of land and further the writ petitioner has based his claim merely on the

records of right in respect of the aforementioned three pots of land the

writ petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs as prayed for.

45. It is thus submitted by Mr. Mahata that it is a fit case for dismissal

of the instant writ petition.