Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 259 (CAL)

Avijit Roy v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013-05-13

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2013
Judgment : The Court: Advocate for the Municipality has submitted under instructions as follows. With respect to the land concerning which allegations have been made in paras. 10 and 11 of the WP the Municipality did not play any role whatsoever. Paragraph 10 of the WP is quoted below: “10. Your petitioner states that the petitioner made survey of the land acquired by the Metro Railway and the petitioner’s land and it appears that on the lands of the petitioner a small pathway has been constructed by the Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality without any notice from the authority concerned and also behind the back of the petitioner and also without initiating any proceeding under the provisions of the Act, 1894 and payment of any compensation to the petitioner. Paragraph 11 of the WP is quoted below:- 11. Your petitioner states that he has come to know that the Metro Railway taking the advantage of partition and/or demarcation of the petitioner’s land the Officers of the Metro Railway in collusion with the Chairman and local Councilor of the Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality constructed Road almost in all sides of the said land of the petitioner illegally and without any acquisition and making any compensation to the petitioner. On survey your petitioner got astonished to find that about 10 cottahs of land has illegally taken over both by the Railway and the said Municipality ignoring all norms, principles and provisions of Acquisition of a citizen’ land. In fact, Metro ailway and the Municipality illegally and wrongfully utilized the petitioner’s land and deprived the petitioner to get due compensation as provided under the L.A. Act, 1894.” Advocate for Metro Railway has received instructions to submit as follows. The allegation of collusion is incorrect. Metro Railway has not acquired any part of the land concerning which allegations have been made in paras.10 and 11. But accepting a request of the Municipality it has only repaired the existing pathway. It is evident that without acquiring the land in question according to law, steps were taken for building roads using the land. The Municipality has come up with a case that with respect to road building it played no role whatsoever. It is not necessary to decide whether Metro Railway repaired the existing pathway on the land accepting a request of the Municipality. Metro Railway has said that it has no interest whatsoever in any part of the land. The Municipality has come up with a case that with respect to road building it played no role whatsoever. It is not necessary to decide whether Metro Railway repaired the existing pathway on the land accepting a request of the Municipality. Metro Railway has said that it has no interest whatsoever in any part of the land. This situation requires Metro Railway to restore the original condition of the land. For these reasons, I dispose of the WP ordering as follows. Within four weeks from the date this order is served Metro Railway shall restore the original condition of the land. It shall dismantle the road it has built using the land in question and obtain a written note of satisfaction from the petitioner. Nothing herein shall prevent Metro Railway from suing the Municipality, if necessary, claiming compensation. Prayer for costs remission is allowed. No costs.