Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 42 (CAL)

Amal Kumar Das v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-01-14

DEBASISH KAR GUPTA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. THIS writ application is filed by the petitioners for de-requisition of the unutilized land lying and situated at Plot Nos. 2582, 2583, 2584 and 2585, J. L. No.22/2, Mouza Rajpur, P.S. Dhanikhali, District Hooghly. 2. THE above plots of land were acquired by imitating a proceeding bearing L. A. Case No. 1-10/56-57 under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. In terms of the award declared in connection with the above land acquisition proceeding the recorded owners of Plot Nos.2583 and 2585 received the award money except Sri Ananta Kumar Koley. With regard to Plot Nos. 2582 and 2590, the petitioners did not come to receive the award money. Subsequently, the co-sharers of the above plots of land submitted a representation dated September 19, 1997 to the respondent No.2 for returning back the unutilized portion of the above plots of land from his sub-ordinate officers. The respondent No.3 recommended for de- requisition of the unutilized portion of the above plots of land by a communication dated November 24, 1999. According to that report some of the portions of the above plots of land were not utilized for the purpose for which the above plots of land were acquired. But the respondent authority did not take any steps for de-requisition of the unutilized portion of plots of land in question in favour of the petitioners. 3. IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the admitted fact that some portions of the plots of land in question were not utilized for the purpose for which the same were acquired, there was no bar and/or impediment for the de-requisition of the same in favour of the petitioners. The attention of this Court is drawn towards some orders of returning the same portion of the adjacent plots of land to the similarly circumstanced owners. 4. IT is submitted by Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Government Pleader, High Court, Calcutta that in view with the settled principles of law the unutilized portion of acquired lands cannot be returned to the erstwhile owners directly. The authority is under an obligation to consider the possibility of utilizing the unutilized plots of land for any other public purpose. 4. IT is submitted by Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Government Pleader, High Court, Calcutta that in view with the settled principles of law the unutilized portion of acquired lands cannot be returned to the erstwhile owners directly. The authority is under an obligation to consider the possibility of utilizing the unutilized plots of land for any other public purpose. If those plots of land cannot be used for any other public purpose in that event only those portions of the land can be put to public auction and the amount fetched in such public auction can be better utilized for the public purpose. It is also submitted by Mr. Banerjee that in view of the settled principles of law one wrong committed by the authority cannot be allowed to be repeated or perpetuated by directing him to pass similar orders. Mr. Banerjee relies upon decisions of State of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2703 and Kastha Niwarak G.S.S. Maryadit, Indore v. President, Indore Development Authority, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1142 in support of his above submissions. 5. FROM the facts and circumstances of the above case, I find that admittedly on the basis of the report submitted by an Officer of the requiring body that some portions of the plots of land in question have not been utilized for the purpose for which those are acquired. Therefore, the respondent authority can deal with the unutilized portions of the land in accordance with law. In accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1a) of Section 4 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, the plots of land have already vested to the State Government. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the State respondents that the law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M. Bhaskaran Pillai (supra) and the relevant portion of the above decision are quoted below:- "In view of the admitted position that the land in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by operation of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, it stood vested in the State free from all circumstances. The question emerges, whether the Government can assign the land to the erstwhile owners? The question emerges, whether the Government can assign the land to the erstwhile owners? It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of land could be used for any other public purpose. In case, there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilized for the pubic purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution. In the present case, what we find is that the executive order is not in consonance with the provision of the Act and is, therefore, invalid. Under these circumstance, the Division Bench is well justified in declaring the executive orders as invalid. Whatever assignment is made, should be for a public purpose. Otherwise, the land of the Government should be sold only through the public auction so that the public also gets benefited by getting higher value." 6. THEREFORE, the State Government can deal with the unutilized portions of the plots of land in question in accordance with the settled principles of law. With regard to the question of returning the adjacent plots of land there is no question of releasing the above plots of land in favour of the erstwhile owners, it is settled principles of law that one wrong committed by the authority cannot be directed to be perpetuated or repeated by the same authority. In this regard, the settled principles of law as decided in the matter of Kastha Niwarak, G.S.S. Maryadit, Indoor v. President, Indore Development Authority, (supra) are quoted below:- "So far as the allotment to non-eligible societies is concerned even if it is accepted, though specifically denied by the authority, to be true that does not confer any right on the appellants. Two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, part would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters, there is no discrimination involved. Two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, part would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters, there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be pressed in to service in such cases: What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the appellant cannot strengthen its case. It has to establish strength of its case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality." 7. IN view of the above observations and discussions, this writ petition fails. 8. NEEDLESS to point out that the petitioners will be at liberty to collect their award money in accordance with law, if not already collected by them. However, the respondent authority wilt be at liberty to take appropriate steps for considering the question of utilization of the unutilized portions of the plots of land in question for any other public purpose. In the event, there is no other public purpose for which the plots of land in question is needed, then the respondent authority will also be at liberty to put the same to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilized for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution. 9. THERE will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the parties on priority basis.