Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 459 (CAL)

Sasanka Sekhar Das v. State of West Bengal

2019-04-08

ABHIJIT GANGOPADHYAY

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for mandamus commanding the respondents to pass award and to give compensation at the present market price for taking over his plot of land. The petitioner has alleged that he is an owner of a plot of land which he purchased on September 20, 1971 from another person. 2. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the plot of land has been acquired by the Sub Divisional Officer, Irrigation, Kuemari Sub Division, Raidighi in the District South 24-Parganas without intimating due process of law and without acquisition and requisition of the lands whereon retired embankment was constructed and therefore, he had been deprived of his land property and no compensation has been given to him for such acquisition by the State authority. 3. The petitioner has stated that in the year 2012 he made one representation to the S.D.O. (Irrigation) of the concerned area stating that without acquisition of the land retired embankment was constructed on his plot of land but till that date his land had not been acquired and no compensation was given to him. He has claimed acquisition of the land and payment of compensation. This representation was made on February 24, 2012. 4. The respondent No.5 being the Sub-Divisional Officer, Irrigation, of the concerned area have filed affidavit-in-opposition denying the allegation stating that the area is under Deltaic Zone of Sundarban area which is highly unusable and subject to frequent change with change of river course, whereby land is lost. Such land was not taken over by the Government for construction of roads, buildings, bridges etc. Construction of "ring bundh" is a kind of temporary structure to prevent "saline ingress" into the countryside. In the said affidavit-in-opposition it has also been stated that the "ring bundh" was constructed in the year 2005-2006 in respect of which it has been stated that it was not acquisition of land. The respondent authority has said specifically that the construction of "ring bundh" was taken up by the Irrigation and Waterways Department as the local people and land owners whose lands were affected requested the department to take up immediate step to protect the lives and properties and cultivated land from further engulfment and saline inundation. The respondent authority has said specifically that the construction of "ring bundh" was taken up by the Irrigation and Waterways Department as the local people and land owners whose lands were affected requested the department to take up immediate step to protect the lives and properties and cultivated land from further engulfment and saline inundation. It is also stated that the said petitioner also agreed to part with the plot of land voluntarily and payment of compensation following Land Acquisition Act 1894 does not arise. 5. By filing affidavit-in-reply the petitioner has denied that it was not acquisition of land. But what is most important in this matter is that petitioner's no specific denial of the statement made by the respondent authority that he along with others voluntarily gave the plot of land for construction of "ring bundh". Instead of denying and disputing such statement of the State respondent the petitioner has stated in the affidavit-in-reply that land compensation is still required. 6. From the above facts and circumstances as pleaded, I find that the dispute centres around payment of compensation in respect of the plot of land of the petitioner. The petitioner has not disclosed any document showing initiation of land acquisition proceeding. The State respondent has stated that it was not at all a case of land acquisition and the "ring bundh" was a temporary construction made at the request of the local people including the petitioner who voluntarily gave their plots of land for such construction of "ring bundh". The petitioner has also not denied that the "ring bundh" was constructed in the year 2005-2006. He made his first representation for compensation which is in the nature of a money claim on February 24, 2012. He has filed the writ application after two years from the date of such representation and the writ application was affirmed and filed on February 06, 2014. There is no denial by the petitioner that "ring bundh" was constructed in the year 2005-2006. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances I hold that there is absolutely no question for this Court to grant any relief whatsoever to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the matter I also find that there cannot be any question of payment of any compensation by initiating land acquisition proceeding as has been prayed by the petitioner. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances I hold that there is absolutely no question for this Court to grant any relief whatsoever to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the matter I also find that there cannot be any question of payment of any compensation by initiating land acquisition proceeding as has been prayed by the petitioner. I have found that the petitioner has filed the writ application with no cause of action and the most important statements made by the State respondent in affidavit-in-opposition as have been indicated hereinabove, have not even been denied by the petitioner. I hold that the petitioner has approached this Court with no cause of action and the land was given by the petitioner voluntarily for construction of "ring bundh". I have found that the writ application has been filed with a very casual approach and conduct of the petitioner in the proceeding is also very casual. The petitioner should understand that a Court of law does not exist for such casual initiation of litigation and proceeding in such a casual manner. 8. I dismiss the writ application with cost of Rs.2,000/- which is to be paid by the petitioner West Bengal Legal Aid services Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of this order and the receipt showing such payment to the said authority should be filed by the petitioner within the aforesaid time-period with the Registrar General's office of this Court for keeping the same with the record of this case. 9. The writ application is dismissed with costs.