Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 122 (CAL)

State of West Bengal v. Ramkrishna Sahoo

2018-01-16

BISWANATH SOMADDER, MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. In re: CAN 10321 of 2017 1. This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application for condonation of delay as well as the affidavits filed in connection thereto, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown by the appellants/applicants to explain the delay in filing of the appeal. As such, the delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay, being CAN 10321 of 2017, is accordingly allowed. In re: MAT 1316 of 2017 with CAN 10322 of 2017 3. On the prayer of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, leave granted for filing of a supplementary affidavit which may be kept on record. 4. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. 5. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 2nd May, 2017, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 26160 (W) of 2016 (Ramkrishna Sahoo & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). The appellants before us are the State of West Bengal and its other authorities. 6. By the impugned judgment and order, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners, being the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein, was allowed with a direction upon the Collector, Purba Medinipur as also the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Purba Medinipur, to pay the amount of compensation to the writ petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, the Act of 2013) within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. 7. From the records, it appears that the writ petitioners had approached the Court praying for cancellation of an award in connection with L.A. Case No. 01/2013-2014 as also a notice dated 14th August, 2016 and for such other ancillary reliefs as stated in the writ petition. The writ petitioners claimed to be the owners of 0.1808 acres of land appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 898, J.L. No. 91 of Mouza Kalikakhali, under Police Station - Chandipur, within the district of Purba Medinipur. The writ petitioners claimed to be the owners of 0.1808 acres of land appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 898, J.L. No. 91 of Mouza Kalikakhali, under Police Station - Chandipur, within the district of Purba Medinipur. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that on 11th September, 2013, the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur, issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that on 24th January, 2014, the Executive Engineer, Tamluk Highway Division, Public Works Roads Directorate, deposited money through cheque issued by State Bank of India with the Collector, Purba Medinipur for the purpose of acquisition of the land in question. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioners that an award of Rs.40,794/- was passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in favour of the petitioners. 8. It is not in dispute that the award of Rs.40,794/- was passed after the Act of 2013 came into force. Further, it appears that at the time of moving the appeal and the application for stay, a wrong statement was made on behalf of the appellants in paragraph 15 of the stay application that the respondents/writ petitioners had got their compensation assessed in terms of the provisions as contained under section 24(1)(A) of the Act of 2013. This has been later rectified by the supplementary affidavit filed in Court today in paragraph 4 thereof. It is evident, therefore, that proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the records reveal that although the award was passed on 31st August, 2016, i.e., after the Act of 2013 has come into force, compensation amount was calculated on the basis of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which stood repealed by that time. 9. In such a backdrop, the direction upon the Collector, Purba Medinipur and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Purba Medinipur, to pay the compensation under the provisions of the Act of 2013 cannot be interfered with. However, we modify the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the following effect :- "The amount of compensation shall be paid to the respondents/writ petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013 within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of a Photostat certified copy of this order." 10. The appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of accordingly. 11. The appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of accordingly. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. I agree.