Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 315
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Rajasekhar Mantha, J.
Bhim Sen Mondal - Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority Under The N.h. Act, 1956 & A.D.M. (l.A.), Burdwan And Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 12379 (W) of 2015 In W.P. No. 23993 (W) of 2014
Decided On : 16-01-2020
Mr. Amit Pan, Mr. Arijit Dey For the Appellant, for the Appellant; Mr. Chandi Charan De, ld. Addl. Govt. Pleader, Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Anirban Sarkar For the State. Mr. Raja Basu Chowdhury, Mr. Sayantan Bose, Mrs. Anyapurba Banerjee, for the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority. Mr. Dipankar Das. For the N.H.A.I, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession of the land had been lawfully taken by the State and the land had vested in favor of the State, based on the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Headnote:
National Highways Act - Land Acquisition - 1956 - Section 16, Section 17(1), Land Acquisition Act - 1894 - Section 16, Section 17 - The court determined whether the possession had been lawfully taken by the State and whether the land had vested in the State. It was held that the possession had been lawfully taken and the land had vested in favor of the State and was transferred in the name of Asansol Durgapur Development Authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was aggrieved by a notice issued by the National Highways Authority identifying him as a person interested in a land under acquisition proceedings initiated under the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioner claimed ownership of the land, which was disputed by the State and the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the possession had been lawfully taken by the State and the land had vested in favor of the State and was transferred in the name of Asansol Durgapur Development Authority.
Issues: The main issue was whether the possession had been lawfully taken by the State and whether the land had vested in the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court accepted that the possession had been lawfully taken and the land had vested in favor of the State, based on the documents and affidavits produced by the parties. The court also considered the lack of objection from the original recorded owner and the proposed compensation for the structures claimed to have been erected by the petitioner.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
1. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by a notice dated 3rd March, 2015 issued by the National Highways Authority identifying him as a person interested in Dag No. 3120 under J.L. No. 58, Mouza - Bamunara comprising in about 0.83 decimal of land. The total compensation was proposed to the writ petitioner was Rs.1,02,166/-. The same admittedly represents the structure on the land and not the land itself. The said notice was issued pursuant to acquisition proceedings instituted under the National Highways Act, 1956.
2. The brief facts relating to the petitioners claim are that the petitioner purchased the land in the year 2005 from one Smt. Mungli Majhi, Sunil Majhi and Smt. Lata Majhi by a registered indenture. His name was originally entered into the records of the B.L.&L.R.O., Burdwan but subsequently deleted. The name of Asansol Durgapur Development Authority had been included in place of the petitioner and proceedings have been initiated challenging the refusal by the B.L.& L.R.O., Burdwan to record the name of the petitioner in his records. Such issue is now pending before the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act of 1997.
3. The State and the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority have used affidavits as also the National Highways Authority. The State would contend before this Court orally as well as by way of affidavit that the said land comprised in an acquisition proceeding originally initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 being L.A. Case No. 1R/1965-1966. The said plot number is covered under Mouza - Bamunara, J.L. No. 58, Police Station - Kanksha, District - Burdwan between C.S. Plot No. 3117 to 3152 under the aforesaid acquisition proceedings.
4. The State would further contend that the compensation has been paid to the recorded land owners thereat being one Kali Sankar Roy, son of Bhola Nath Roy of Raniganj and compensation amount of Rs.110/- has been received vide Cheque No. 257194 dated 29th March, 1976.
5. Towards the fulfillment of the provisions as regards possession, the State would contend and rely upon a Certificate of Possession dated 11th June, 1965 signed by the Head Surveyor, one Paresh Chandra Banik, of the Office of the Special Land Acquisition Office and received by the Durgapur Development Authority. The said Certificate of Possession is stated to be under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.
6. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land in question cannot vest in the State unless the State is able to demonstrate suitable possession having been taken in terms of Section 16 or proceedings taken under Section 17 of the said Act and such Certificate of Possession must indicate that the State has taken possession from the recorded land owners. The Certificate of Possession dated 11th June, 1965 relied upon by the Counsel for the State, according to the petitioner, cannot amount to a certificate in terms of Section 16 or 17 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.
7. This Court has carefully considered the pleadings and documents produced and filed by the respective parties. The only question to be determined is as to whether the possession has been lawfully taken over by the State and as to whether the land has vested in the State to be delivered to the Durgapur Development Authority as has been contended by the State. It is stated that at the at the time when the acquisition was proposed by the National Highway Authority in the year 2011, pursuant whereof the impugned notices has been issued to the petitioner, there are discussions and notings in a meeting of the Board of the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority to the effect that the land has not been acquired in the first place and fresh acquisition proceeding may be warranted, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners land.
8. He further points out to the affidavit filed by the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority which disclo
