Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 944 (CAL)

STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SOMESUBHRA DE

2015-12-03

NISHITA MHATRE, TAPAS MOOKHERJEE

body2015
JUDGMENT : The Judgment of the Court was as follows : In Re : C.A.N. 11397 of 2015 The application has been filed for condoning the delay of 438 days. 2. We are of the view that the delay ought to be condoned as we find that the reasons for the delay mentioned in the application are bona fide. 3. Accordingly the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. 4. The application being CAN 11397 of 2015 is allowed. In Re : M.A.T. 1783 of 2015 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. The appeal is directed against the order dated 6th August, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6895 (W) of 2014. 7. A few facts necessary to dispose of the appeal are as follows: Pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 the State took possession of the land owned by the Petitioner i.e. the respondent herein. No steps were taken by the Government of the State of West Bengal to determine the compensation under the aforesaid Act. There is no dispute that the aforesaid Act of 1948 had been enacted for a temporary period and has lapsed in 1997. 8. No notification has been issued by the State under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. Therefore after the lapsing of the Act of 1948 the State is in possession of the land owned by the respondent illegally and without payment of compensation. The land has been utilised for construction of the Link road from Kalna-Baidyapur to Akalpoush health Centre. 9. Today admittedly no proceedings have been initiated under any Act for payment of compensation to the respondent. Aggrieved by this action of the State the respondent preferred the aforesaid Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge has accepted the contention of the respondent that the State must determine the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The learned Single Judge has directed that since no award was passed pursuant to the notification issued under the Act of 1948, the Act of 2013 would be applicable for determining the compensation payable to the respondent. The learned Single Judge has directed that since no award was passed pursuant to the notification issued under the Act of 1948, the Act of 2013 would be applicable for determining the compensation payable to the respondent. The Court has directed that the compensation must be determined under the Act and the concerned requiring body should be called upon to release the fund making payment to the respondent. 10. Mr. Datta, the learned Counsel appearing for the State and other appellants including the requiring body submits that the aforesaid Act of 2013 has a certain procedure which is required to be followed before compensation is paid. He submits that the impugned order does not indicate that this procedure is required to be followed and merely directs the determination of compensation. According to him the appellants are aggrieved by such a direction. 11. In our opinion, the matter can be laid to rest by clarifying the order as follows: The State shall determine the compensation payable to the respondent by initiating proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. After the initiation of the proceedings under the aforesaid Act of 2013, compensation shall be determined and paid over to the respondent. Obviously all the provisions of the 2013 Act must be scrupulously followed while determining the compensation. 12. The State has been in possession of the respondents property since 1982 without paying a single paise. We, therefore, direct the State to initiate proceedings immediately and in any case within two months from today. The Collector shall make an award within one year from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 19. This direction has been issued to avoid any further delay in payment of compensation to the respondent who has been illegally and unjustly deprived of his property since 1982. 13. Accordingly, the instant appeal along with CAN 11398 of 2015 are thus disposed of. 14. There will, however, be no order as to costs.