Back
2014 Supreme(Cal) 733
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, J.
Gita Rani Mondal & Others
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others
C.A.N.No. 8561 of 2012 with W.P.No. 15591(W) of 2003 (Appellate Side)
Decided on: 12-12-2014
For the Petitioners:P.B. Sahu, Sudhakar Biswas, Prasanta Bishal, Advocates. For the Respondents:Rammohan Pal, Ashoke Banerjee, Debabrata Banerjee, Samir Kumar Chakraborty, Advocates.
A writ petition challenging an acquisition proceeding cannot be amended after a delay of about 7 years, especially when the amendment seeks to challenge the invocation of the urgency provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and would adversely affect the rights of innocent people who have settled on the acquired properties.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - SECTION 4, 17 - AMENDMENT OF WRIT PETITION - DELAY AND LACHES - INORDINATE DELAY - LIMITATION - WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING ACQUISITION PROCEEDING - INVOCATION OF URGENCY PROVISION - AMENDMENT SOUGHT TO CHALLENGE URGENCY CLAUSE - ACQUIRED PROPERTIES SETTLED WITH NUMEROUS PERSONS - AMENDMENT REJECTED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the acquisition proceeding in respect of various lands, alleging non-compliance with Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Respondents filed affidavits-in-opposition and supplementary affidavits, including notifications under Section 4 and declarations under Section 6 of the Act. Petitioners sought to amend the writ petition to challenge the invocation of Section 17 (urgency provision) of the Act, but the application was filed after a delay of about 7 years.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the amendment application was barred by the law of limitation and could not be entertained due to the unexplained delay. The Court also noted that the acquisition proceeding had come to an end, and the acquired properties had been settled with numerous persons who had developed the properties. Allowing the amendment at this stage would adversely affect the rights of these innocent people and would create a lengthy and never-ending process for the disposal of the writ petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment application was barred by the law of limitation? 2. Whether the delay in filing the amendment application was explained? 3. Whether allowing the amendment would adversely affect the rights of innocent people who had settled on the acquired properties?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the amendment application was barred by the law of limitation, as it was filed beyond the prescribed period of three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. 2. The Court found that the petitioners had not provided any cogent explanation for the delay in filing the amendment application, despite the fact that they were aware of the facts and circumstances of the case since the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent filing of affidavits by the respondents. 3. The Court held that allowing the amendment at this stage would adversely affect the rights of innocent people who had settled on the acquired properties and developed them in various ways, as it would require the demolition of buildings, roads, and other structures.
Final Decision: The Court rejected the amendment application, holding that it was barred by limitation, unexplainedly delayed, and would adversely affect the rights of innocent people.
Sahidullah Munshi, J.
This is an application for amendment filed in connection with W.P.15591(W) of 2003. The writ petition was affirmed on 26th of September, 2003. In the writ petition the petitioner made the following prayers :
A. A Writ of and/or in the nature of -Mandamus, commanding the Respondents, their men, agents and subordinates why an appropriate direction should not be given upon the State Government in case the said land was not properly acquired in accordance with law within a reasonable time, the land of the petitioners should not be declared free from acquisition and the petitioners may start the construction of the building for their dwelling purpose.
B. A Writ of and/or in the nature of – Mandamus, commanding the Respondents, their men, agents and subordinates why the impugned notice and/or notification issued by the State Authorities for acquisition of the petitioners without taking recourse to the provisions of law in respect of the petitioners’ lands should not be quashed, cancelled and set aside.
C. A Writ of and/or in the nature of – Certiorari, calling upon the Respondents, their men, agents and subordinates to transmit and certify the records of the proceedings to this Hon’ble Court so that the conscionable justice may be done by quashing the impugned notice and/or alleged notification for acquisition of the petitioners’ lands;
D. Rule Nisi in terms of the prayers A to C as above;
E. Costs of the petition and incidental to this petition;
F. Any other appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions;
G. An ad interim order of injunction restraining the Respondents, their men, agents and subordinates and each one of them from disturbing in any manner with the peaceful possession of the petitioners in respect of the lands as mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 28 to this petition, and further restraining the respondents, their men, agents and subordinates and associates from taking the said lands by the State authority without taking recourse to the provisions of law, till the disposal of the Rule.
Out of the above-mentioned prayers by virtue of prayer B the writ petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, their men, agents and subordinates as to why impugned notice and/or notification issued by the State authorities for acquisition of the writ petitioner’s land without taking recourse to the provisions of law should not be quashed, cancelled and/or set aside. Number of petitioners have joined together and challenged the acquisition proceeding in respect of various lands description of which has been mentioned in the writ petition. In the writ proceeding affidavits have been filed by the respondents way back in 2003. From the record it appears that an affidavit-in-opposition was affirmed on 17th November, 2003 by Kajal De Biswas, Additional Land Acquisition Officer, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. By the said affidavit-in-opposition the said respondents dealt with the entire case of the petitioner and the acquisition in respect of the lands. Annexures to the said affidavit disclose notifications in connection with the acquisition proceeding.
One of the notifications being annexed as Annexure R-1 dated 11th July, 2002 shows that the said notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act (I) of 1894 (Land Acquisition Act, 1894) and it also mentions that the said notification has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The Governor was pleased to direct that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act shall not apply to the lands as described in the Schedule to the said notification to which in the opinion of the Governor, the provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act would be applicable. Under Section 17 special power is being exercised by the Government in case of urgency. The petitioners have filed their reply to the said affidavit-in-opposition and in their repl
