Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 252 (CAL)

Paritosh Jana v. UNION OF INDIA

2013-05-10

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2013
Judgment : The Court: The petitioner in this WP under art.226 of the Constitution of India dated April 19, 2013 is seeking a mandamus commanding the Competent Authority of Deshpran-Nandigram Special Railway Project within the meaning of s.2(7A) of the Railways Act, 1989 to pay him compensation for acquisition of the property in question under provisions of the Railways Act, 1989. Mr Banerjee appearing for the petitioner has submitted as follows. He is not pressing the case as to the employment issue. Since the documents produced with the W P reveal that the petitioner had purchased the property before initiation of the proceedings for acquisition of the property, the competent authority ought to have given him notice and passed an award entitling him to compensation. Mr Gupta appearing for the competent authority and the Railway has submitted as follows. If the competent authority is directed to examine the petitioner’s claim that he was and is entitled to compensation for the acquisition of the property in question, then the competent authority may be permitted to examine all questions and issues and give decision after hearing the petitioner and the person or persons in whose favour the award has already been passed. In view of the above-noted submissions, I do not think it will be appropriate for me to make any comment on the merits of the petitioner’s claim. I think the competent authority should be given freedom to decide the petitioner’s entitlement to compensation for the acquisition of the property in question. I am not prepared to accept that the petitioner’s representation dated August 22, 2012 (W P p.40) is a proper representation to the competent authority; for copies thereof were sent to the General Manager of the Railway, a Member of the Parliament and the Railway Minister of the Union of India. This process adopted by the petitioner cannot be countenanced. He was making a representation to a statutory authority, and he could not demonstrate his intention to exert extraneous administrative and political influence on the authority. The process adopted by him shows that with a view to exerting such influence he sent copies of the representation to officials and authorities who had nothing to do in the matter of determination of compensation and identification of persons entitled to compensation. For these reasons, I dispose of the WP ordering as follows. The process adopted by him shows that with a view to exerting such influence he sent copies of the representation to officials and authorities who had nothing to do in the matter of determination of compensation and identification of persons entitled to compensation. For these reasons, I dispose of the WP ordering as follows. If the petitioner submits a proper representation with supporting documents within a fortnight, then the competent authority shall hear him and the person or persons in whose favour the award has been passed and give an appropriate decision examining and deciding the petitioner’s entitlement to compensation for the acquisition of the property in question. No costs.