Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 105 (CAL)

Rajabala Mondal v. State of West Bengal

2025-01-20

PARTHA SARATHI SEN

body2025
JUDGMENT : PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. 1. In this writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or writs against the respondent State, more specifically against the respondent no.5 authority for quashing and/or rescinding the acquisition proceeding in respect of plot of lands, particulars of which has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the instant writ petition. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that it is an admitted position that by virtue of a land acquisition proceeding as initiated in the year 1962, 26.62 acres of land was acquired by the respondent no.5 authority which was thereafter handed over to the respondent no.2 authority for construction of Haldia Dock. Drawing attention to page nos.12, 13 and 14, being the copy of the judgment as passed in G.R. Case No.396 of 1998 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldia, Purba Medinipur, as has been annexed with the written notes of argument, it is contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner has been falsely implicated in a criminal proceeding under Sections 466/468/471 IPC wherefrom he was, however, acquitted by the said court of Judicial Magistrate on 03.01.2019. 3. In course of his argument, learned advocate for the writ petitioner further draws attention of this Court from page nos.16 to 17 of the writ petition being copies of two unregistered licenses in the name of the original writ petitioner as executed in the year 1945 in respect of certain portions of the subject plots. It is argued that by virtue of the said two licenses, the writ petitioner came into possession over certain portions of the plots which are subject matter of the instant writ petition. 4. In his next fold of submission, learned advocate for the writ petitioner draws attention of this Court to the copies of RS RoR dated 29.08.1996 which has been annexed with the instant writ petition at page nos.20 and 21. 4. In his next fold of submission, learned advocate for the writ petitioner draws attention of this Court to the copies of RS RoR dated 29.08.1996 which has been annexed with the instant writ petition at page nos.20 and 21. Attention of this Court is also drawn to an enquiry report dated 05.06.2018 as submitted by the Jurisdictional Revenue Inspector in connection with a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that from the said RS RoR of the year 1996 and the report of 2018, it would reveal that the writ petitioner is still in possession of the aforementioned properties, particulars of which has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. Drawing further attention of this Court to page no.26 of the written notes of argument, it is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that from the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by the respondent State, it would reveal that it is the case of the respondent State that they have disbursed compensation to one Sadananda Sardar, Sayanda Sardar and Tararani Sardar, who according to the writ petitioner were not the recorded owner of the alleged acquired plots of land and thus, the said persons are not entitled to any compensation as prayed for. 5. It is submitted further that since the alleged acquisition proceeding of 1962 under the Act-I of 1894 was concluded without disbursing payment of compensation to the rightful owner of the said acquired land that is the writ petitioner herein, the entire acquisition proceeding may be treated as vitiated and therefore, an appropriate writ may be issued against the respondent State, more specifically against the respondent no.5 for quantification of the compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act of 2013’). 6. Per contra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the order dated 16.03.2021 and the order dated 31.03.2023 as passed in the instant writ petition by two separate coordinate Benches of this Court. 7. 6. Per contra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the order dated 16.03.2021 and the order dated 31.03.2023 as passed in the instant writ petition by two separate coordinate Benches of this Court. 7. It reveals that by an order dated 16.03.2021, the writ petitioner was directed to adduce documents demonstrating that the writ petitioner was the owner of the land which is the subject matter of the instant writ petition and by the subsequent order dated 31.03.2023, a report was called for from the Special Land Acquisition Collector as to whether any land in excess of the area acquired by the Gazette notification of 1963 was taken possession by the State or not. 8. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent State that pursuant to the order dated 16.03.2021 no new documents have been filed by the writ petitioner to substantiate his ownership with regard to the acquired land as directed by this Court. It is further submitted that pursuant to the order dated 31.03.2023, a report was filed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector which clearly shows that no excess land was acquired by the State pursuant to the relevant notification of 1962. 9. Drawing attention to the additional affidavit-in-opposition dated 21.01.2020, it is further submitted on behalf of the respondent State that from the paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the said affidavit-in-opposition dated 21.01.2020 it would reveal that in the said paragraphs the particulars of the plot number, acquired area, nature of the land, name of the persons who are found to be the recorded owners of the same and names of the awardees have been clearly described. It is, thus, submitted on behalf of the respondent State that since at the time of acquisition the name of the original writ petitioner, that is, Gajendranath Sardar was not found available, the question of disbursement of compensation in favour of the writ petitioner did not arise. Learned advocate for the respondent State thus submits that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. 10. While adopting the argument of the learned advocate for the respondent State, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 being the requiring body draws attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition as affirmed on 30.03.1999. Learned advocate for the respondent State thus submits that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. 10. While adopting the argument of the learned advocate for the respondent State, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 being the requiring body draws attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition as affirmed on 30.03.1999. It is submitted that on conjoint perusal of paragraph 9(a) and copy of the relevant notification as available at page 15 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, being Annexure-A it would reveal that entire plot of CS plot nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 were acquired and the same was handed over to the respondent no.2 authority. It is thus submitted that in absence of any cogent document of title and/or possession in respect of the self-same acquired property prior to the acquisition proceeding, the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent no.2 authority that on account of non-explanation or inordinate delay and laches, the writ petitioner is also not entitled to any relief. It is further submitted that the writ petitioner for ventilating his grievance could have approached appropriate court to establish his title and possession and, thus, on account of availability of the alternative remedy, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. 11. Learned advocate for the respondent no.2 also places reliance to the report as submitted by the respondent no.5 authority pursuant to the order of the coordinate Bench on 31.03.2023. 12. This Court has meticulously gone through the entire materials as placed before this Court. This Court has given its due consideration over the submission of the learned advocates for the contending parties. 13. 12. This Court has meticulously gone through the entire materials as placed before this Court. This Court has given its due consideration over the submission of the learned advocates for the contending parties. 13. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court, it reveals that by notification dated 22.08.1962, CS plot nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 in full were acquired by the respondent State. Documents have been placed before this Court that immediately after the acquisition the said plots of land in full have been handed over to the respondent no.2. From the report of the respondent no.5 it appears to this Court that the details of the plots of land including the plot number, acquired area, classification of the land, name of the owner of the said plots of land and particulars of the awardees have been disclosed. Admittedly, in the said report the name of the original writ petitioner, Gajendranath Sardar is not transpiring. It is the specific case of the respondent State that at the time of acquisition proceeding the said original writ petitioner, Gajendranath Sardar, since deceased’s name was not recorded in the relevant CS RoR. As discussed supra, a coordinate Bench practically granted a liberty to the petitioner by passing an order dated 16.03.2021 to adduce document to substantiate his title and possession over the acquired plots of land prior to the acquisition. 14. This Court has meticulously gone through the photocopy of the deed of licence as has been annexed at page nos.16 and 17 of the writ petition and it appears that the said deed of licence was granted on 28.04.1945. The writ petitioner claims title and possession in respect of plot nos.3, 21, 11, 13, 24, 25, 4, 8, 5, 2 and 6 on the basis of the said two licenses. 15. It has been claimed on behalf of the writ petitioner that on the basis of the said two deeds of licence the original writ petitioner’s name was duly recorded in the RS RoR dated 29.08.1996. 16. 15. It has been claimed on behalf of the writ petitioner that on the basis of the said two deeds of licence the original writ petitioner’s name was duly recorded in the RS RoR dated 29.08.1996. 16. It appears to this Court that a deed of licence is not a document of title and it is also settled that under the provisions of the Registration Act 1908, a registered deed of conveyance in respect of an immovable property having value of more than Rs.100/- is to be conveyed only by a registered document. Since a deed of possession cannot be considered as a deed of title this Court considers that the writ petitioner has miserably failed to discharge his obligation to prove his title over the plots of land which are the subject matter of notification of acquisition of the year 1962. 17. Admittedly, in the affidavit-in-opposition the writ petitioner has relied upon some RS RoR but those are of the year 1996. Keeping in mind that RS RoR is only a document of possession and not of title and also keeping in mind that a presumption upon a record of right is a rebuttable presumption, this Court further finds that the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition has failed to demonstrate his title and possession over any portions of the plots which are the subject matter of the aforementioned notification. As rightly noticed by a coordinate Bench of this Court that after acquisition, rights and title of the land owners over the acquired land stood extinguished. It thus appears before this Court that the writ petitioner has miserably failed to demonstrate that he has either title or possession over any portion of the land which was acquired in the year 1962. 18. As rightly argued by the learned advocate for the respondent no.2 that because of the long delay the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief since no explanation has been offered on behalf of the writ petitioner as to what prompted him to file the writ petition in the month of September 1998, whereas the acquisition proceeding was started in the year 1962. 19. 19. At this juncture, this Court intends to place its reliance upon a reported decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, namely, Banda Development Authority, Banda versus Motilal Agarwal and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court exercised the following view: “17. It is true that no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but one of the several rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts is that the High Court will not entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may adversely affect the settled/crystallised rights of the parties. If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High Court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merit.” 20. It appears to this Court that the proposition of law as enshrined in the case of Banda Development Authority (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand. For the sake of argument, even if, it is accepted that the writ petitioner is/was the owner of the subject plot of lands prior to the acquisition proceeding, this court finds no plausible explanation of the writ petitioner as to why he made so much delay in approaching this court for granting relief by exercising plenary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court has also noticed that pursuant to the said acquisition proceeding, the possession of the land was given to the respondent no.2 authority on 31.07.1963 and in the meantime, a valuable right has also been accrued in favour of the respondent no.2, may be even in favour of some third party at the instance of the respondent no.2. 21. In view of such, this Court considers that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief also on the ground of delay and laches. 22. This Court thus holds that the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. The application being CAN 1 of 2001 (Old No. CAN 10215 of 2001) is also dismissed. 23. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 24. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.