( 1 ) IN all these writ applications filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, the legality of the actions on the part of the respondents in treating the petitioners unequally with another similarly circumstanced person in the matter of following different modes of calculation for payment of damage compensations for the lands belonging to them are under challenge.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in all these writ applications are the owners of plots of land lying and situated in different mouzas of the same areas in the District of Hooghly. Notices were sewed upon all of them in the months of January 1973, by the Land Acquisition Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Hooghly in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1a) of Section 3 of the West bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 initiating requisition cases in respect of the plots of land belonging the petitioners for construction of mundeswari Left Embankment 13 miles. Possessions in respect of all the plots of land were taken by the respondents in the months of January and February, 1973. Subsequently notices were issued either on predecessors of the petitioners or on the petitioners for payment of 80 per cent of compensation in respect of aforesaid plots of land. But nothing was paid to them.

( 3 ) IN the year 2001 some of the petitioners filed applications under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for direction upon the respondents for payment of compensation to them. Thereafter, the respondents took decision with regard to the aforesaid plots of land belonging to petitioners and informed all of them in or about April, 2. 002 as per communications of the Land Acquisition collector, Hooghly that the respondents decided to release those plots of lands to the petitioners treating the date of release as on March 31,1997. Since the respondents were in possession of the aforesaid plots of land for a long period without paying any money to them, some of the petitioners filed writ applications for payment of adequate damage compensation to them. Ultimately, damage compensations were paid to all petitioners.

( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioners in all the writ applications is that one Asgar Ali, since deceased, who was similarly circumstanced with them in respect of the plot of land belonging to him, got damage compensation from the respondents at a higher rate without any cogent reason.

( 5 ) MR. Amal Baran Chatterjee, Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all this writ applications, submits that the respondents followed different methods for calculation of damage compensation in cases of different similarly circumstanced land owners. These discretionary treatments are not sustainable in law. Accordingly, Mr. Chatterjee prays for a direction upon the respondents for calculating the damage compensations in respect of plots of land belonging the petitioners at a rate in which such compensation was calculated in case of the land belonging the aforesaid Late Asgar Ali and to pay the difference money to the petitioners.

( 6 ) IT appears from the statements made in the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in W. P. No, 10482 (W) of 2003 that the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Land and Land reports Department, Land Acquisition Branch as per departmental communication issued under Memo No. 10485 (90)-LA (II) 3m-48/96 dated november 27, 1997 prescribed the mode of dealing with the land acquisition cases pending under the West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 beyond the date of March 31, 1997. Provisions of Clauses (3) and (4) of the guideline enclosed to the above communication are quoted below:

"what should be the modality of dropping the cases where requisition was made but land is no longer required for the purpose, since there is no de-requisition provisions in the Amendment Act.

EXPLANATION : In case of L. A. Cases where possession of land followed by requ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document