Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2 (CAL)

Sk. Noor Mohammad Mondal v. State of West Bengal

2009-01-05

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2009
JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows:- The petitioner in this writ petition dated December 20, 2008 is seeking a mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Collector, 24-Parganas (North), the second respondent, to delete the name of the fifth respondent, Sokorjan Bibi, from the awards made in LA-4/13 of 2006-07 and LA 4/55 of 2005-06. 2. Mr. Banerjee, Counsel for the state, raises a preliminary objection questioning the maintainability of the writ petition. Mr. Bhattacharjee. Counsel for the fifth respondent, also questions the maintainability of the writ petition. According to both of them, in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the writ petition is simply not maintainable. 3. In my opinion, both Mr. Banerjee and Mr. Bhattacharjee are right in their submissions. The awards were made by the Collector in the acquisition proceedings which were initiated under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Mr. Chatterjee, counsel for the petitioner, submits that the awards were made by the Collector in favour of both the petitioner and the fifth respondent, though the petitioner raised specific objection that the fifth respondent was not entitled to get any part of the compensation. His further submission is that no notice under Section 12(2) or Section 31 has ever been served on the petitioner. According to him, in view of the wrong decision taken by the Collector to include the fifth respondent's name in the awards the writ petition is maintainable, since under Section 18, the petitioner, if desired, could question only the quantum of compensation. His further submission is that in view of the several litigations in which both the parties are involved, and especially in view of pendency of the mandamus appeal that the petitioner filed feeling aggrieved by an order passed by this Court in the fifth respondent's writ petition previously filed, there is no reason to say that the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. I find no merit in the argument that the provisions of Section 18 entitled the petitioner only to question the quantum of compensation determined by the Collector. By making an appropriate application under Section 18 the petitioner, as a person named in the awards and aggrieved thereby, could question the Collector's decision to pay a part of the compensation to the fifth respondent as well. By making an appropriate application under Section 18 the petitioner, as a person named in the awards and aggrieved thereby, could question the Collector's decision to pay a part of the compensation to the fifth respondent as well. Since the petitioner was entitled to exercise his statutory right by filing applications for reference within the period mentioned in Section 18, there is absolutely no scope to permit him to exercise that right indirectly by filing this writ petition. In the face of the provisions of Section 18 a writ petition, such as this, is simply not maintainable. Even if notices under Sections 12 and 31 are not issued by the Collector, the person aggrieved by the award is not entitled to bypass the remedy available under Section 18 and approach the writ Court. The provisions of Section 18 protect the right of the person concerned in such a situation. Pendency of the litigations or the mandamus appeal is not a ground to entertain this writ petition. 5. For these reasons, I dismiss the writ petition. There shall be no order for costs. Urgent certified xerox of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties within three days from date of receipt of the file by the section concerned.