Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 101 (CAL)

Sudhir Kumar Mondal v. The State of West Bengal

2008-01-22

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2008
Judgment Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J: The writ petition was taken up for hearing on January 18th, 2008 when the following order was made. “Possession of the land was taken in 1985 after issuing an order under s.3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition & Acquisition) Act, 1948. No step was taken for acquisition. The 1948 Act expired in 1997. In view of the state amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in such cases as this the collector was to issue the S.9(3A) notice, and that he was to issue in 1997. It is alleged that till date he has not taken step for issuing that notice. This gross inaction on the part of the collector has driven the petitioners to this court. For generating such absolutely avoidable litigation why exemplary costs should not be imposed that is to be examined. Hence I admit the writ petition and order that if the respondents want to file any affidavit why costs should not be imposed, that shall be filed by next Monday. List the matter for ‘order’ next Tuesday. Urgent certified xerox copy of this order and also copy authenticated by A.R.(C) or A.C.O. shall be supplied to the parties, if applied for.” The additional land acquisition officer concerned has filed his affidavit dated January 21st, 2008. He has not disputed that possession of the land was taken, after making an order under s.3 of the 1948 Act, in 1985; and that notice under S.4(1a) was not published. When he was required to take steps in terms of the 1997 state amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the requisite step was to be taken in 1997, in his affidavit (in para.2) he has said: “The L.A. proceeding in question is now required to be revived U/S (3AO OR 9(3B) of the amendment Act, 1997 as the case may be after verification of utilization of the land in question.” As to why the collector should not be ordered to pay costs for the gross inaction, he has said as follows (in paras. 3 & 7): “3. It is most humbly and respectfully stated that due to the shifting of the records from the old room to the new one the records of the case got misplaced and was not readily available accordingly necessary steps could not be taken in the matter. The records were suddenly available in December, 2007. 3 & 7): “3. It is most humbly and respectfully stated that due to the shifting of the records from the old room to the new one the records of the case got misplaced and was not readily available accordingly necessary steps could not be taken in the matter. The records were suddenly available in December, 2007. Immediately a note was prepared for taking up the matter with the R.B. for confirmation of the publication of the notification U/S 4(1)(a) and for issuance of the notice U/S 9(3A)/9(3B) of the Amendment Act as the case may be. 7. The deponent prays that the Hon’ble Court would be pleased to accept the apology tendered by the deponent and be pleased to pardon the deponent and excuse. The respondent authorities from paying cost in the instant case.” In his affidavit immediately after para.3, para.7 has been printed, paras. 4,5 and 6 are not there. After reading the affidavit, I am compelled to say that the additional land acquisition officer filing the affidavit either does not know the provisions of law or has not cared to read his affidavit which he was filing to the high court. Why I say so is apparent from the statements he has made, and which I have quoted hereinbefore. There was no question of reviving the acquisition proceedings. As a matter of fact no acquisition proceedings were initiated at all, and they were to be initiated by issuing a notice under S.9(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the sub-section was inserted into S.9 of the 1894 Act by a state amendment thereof made in 1997). The proceedings remained alive. Curiously it has been stated that the records connected with requisition of the land were not readily available, but all of a sudden in December 2007 they became available. If the explanation is to be accepted, then, in my view, it cannot be accepted without expressing an opinion that the additional land acquisition officer is a totally incompetent person, because he even cannot manage his records. In the affidavit it has been stated that note was prepared, after the records suddenly became available, for confirmation of the notification under S.4(1a) of the 1948 Act. In the affidavit it has been stated that note was prepared, after the records suddenly became available, for confirmation of the notification under S.4(1a) of the 1948 Act. It is unfortunate that the additional land acquisition officer affirming the affidavit does not even know that in December 2007 there was no scope for preparing a note suggesting confirmation of publication of the notification under S.4(1a) of the 1948 Act that expired as back as 1997. It seems to me that in a most irresponsible manner the affidavit has been filed without even caring to examine the position of law. A large number of cases such as this are coming up before this court, and almost as a matter of routine this court has been making order directing the collectors concerned to issue the requisite notice under S.9(3A) or 9(3B), and to conclude the acquisition proceedings within the time fixed in the order. By sheer indifference and inaction the collectors concerned have been generating this category of absolutely avoidable litigation. In my view, this is a fit case where the collector should be ordered to pay exemplary costs so that it may act as a deterrent to the collectors and awake the state to the situation. The state should take immediate steps for arresting further generation of this category of absolutely avoidable litigation. Needless to say that delay on the part of the collector to issue the S.9(3A) notice shall cost the state very dearly, because the market value of the land is to be determined on the basis on the date of such notice; with every day’s delay liability of the state is increasing only. For these reasons, I dispose of the writ petition ordering as follows. Within a fortnight from the date of communicating this order, the collector concerned shall issue the S.9 (3A) notice to the persons concerned including the petitioners. After following the relevant provisions of law, the collector shall make and declare the award in the proceedings within six months from the date the S.9(3A) notice is issued. Immediately after the award is made notices under Ss.12(2), if necessary, and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be issued to the persons concerned, and compensation payable to the persons named in the award shall be paid. Immediately after the award is made notices under Ss.12(2), if necessary, and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be issued to the persons concerned, and compensation payable to the persons named in the award shall be paid. If the requiring body, if any, fails and neglects to make the fund available for paying compensation, then the land and land reforms department of the state government shall make the fund available. The collector is ordered to pay Rs.30,000/- costs to the persons named in the award. All exercises including payment shall be carried out and completed within the period mentioned hereinbefore.