IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
State Of West Bengal And Others - Appellant
Versus
Bimal Sardar And Others - Respondent
R.V.W 271 of 2017 & IA No. CAN. 1 of 2017 (Old No. CAN 11258 of 2017) & IA No. CAN. 2 of 2017 (Old No. CAN 11259 of 2017) in W.P.A. 25094 of 2016 with W.P.C.R.C. 172 of 2017
Decided On : 22-09-2022
Land Acquisition - Compensation Disbursement - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 9, Article 226 of the Constitution - LA Case No. LA-4/116 of 2012-2013 - Plot Nos. 492, 493, 494 - Ring Bandh - Review Application Dismissed
Fact of the Case:
The State acquired land, including the land of the Respondent, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, due to a cyclone. The Respondent claimed that the compensation awarded had not been paid and filed a writ petition. The court directed the State to pay the compensation, which was challenged through a review application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no suppression of material facts by the Respondent and dismissed the review application. It emphasized the limited scope of review and the need for parties to approach the court with 'clean hands.'
Issues: Suppression of material facts, jurisdiction of the court to review its own judgment, and the adequacy of the compensation disbursement process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the principles of review, emphasizing that it is a limited power governed by specific conditions, and dismissed the review application due to the lack of new and important matter or evidence justifying a review.
Final Decision: The review petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
Shekhar B. Saraf, J. - This review application has been filed by the State against an order dated April 10, 2017 passed by Justice R.K. Bag in W.P. No. 25094(W) of 2016.
2. The facts of the present matter are as follows :
a. The Applicant/Respondent is the State of West Bengal, service through the Secretary, Department of Land & Land Reforms, Government of West Bengal and others.
b. The Respondent no. 1/ Writ Petitioner is Bimal Sardar. He is the recorded owner of Plot No. 492 (area - 1.13 acres) Plot No. 493 (area 0.04 acres) and Plot No. 494 (area 66 decimals) of Mouza - Baunia Abad, J.L. No. 20, Khaitan No. 3041 and 4741 under P.S. Sandeshkhali, District - North 24 Parganas.
c. The plot was agricultural land and the Respondent/ Writ Petitioner had khas possession of the plot. He was cultivating this using his own men, bullocks and family members. In 2009, due to Cyclone Aila, Sunderbans were affected and the embankment was demolished, where the Writ Petitioner resided. Due to the damage and the Respondent was no longer able to cultivate the land.
d. After the Cyclone Aila, in order to protect the local area and residential houses in the area, the Applicants/Respondents decided to prepare a ring bandh to prevent further flooding. In lieu of this, the Applicants acquired land, including the land of the Respondent/Writ Petitioner, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
e. The Respondent/Writ Petitioner states that the Applicant/Respondent had acquired and took over possession of the demarcated land. The acquisition of the Respondent's/Writ Petitioner's land was registered as L.A. Case No. LA-4/116 of 2012-2013 and an award was made in connection with this case.
f. Subsequently, a dispute between the parties arose regarding the payment of compensation owed to the Respondent/Writ Petitioner, for the land that was acquired from them under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and in connection with L.A. Case No. LA-4/116 of 2012-13. The Respondent/Writ Petitioner contends that the award associated with the case has not been paid. The impugned order dated April 10, 2017 of Justice R.K. Bag also observed that there was nothing on record to indicate that the payment had been made to the Respondent/Writ Petitioner.
g. From December 7, 2010 to September 1, 2016, the Respondent/Writ Petitioner approached various authorities to disburse the compensation amount owed to him. He approached the Sub-Divisional Officer, Haroa, Irrigation Sub-Division, Basirhat, North 24 Parganas, Executive Engineer, Basirhat Irrigation Division duly recommended by Pradhan, Nazat-I Gram Panchayat, Sandeshkhali - I, ADM (LO) Land Executive, North 24- Pargananas, Barasat, Project Directorate - I, the Deputy Secretary of the Govt of West Bengal as well as the Superintending Engineer, Eastern Circle, Irrigation and Waterways Directorate. Despite this, no action was taken by any of the concerned authorities to release the said compensation.
h. On February 21, 2013 the Executive Engineer submitted a proposal in the aforesaid LA Case No. LA-4/116 of 2012-2013 to Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Office and conveying the fact that relevant estimate of land in question was sanctioned by the appropriate authority in connection with the said L.A. case for placement of fund as per provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
i. On February 27, 2013, The Executive Engineer also solicited before the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Barasat for compensation to be released under Act-I of 1894 through the Basirhat Irrigation Division, with regard to the acquisition of more or less 0.552 acres.
j. The Respondent/Writ Petitioner did not receive compensation despite filing numerous applications before the concerned authorities and proceeded to send a demand letter dated September 1, 2016, to the concerned authorities, for the compensation and the interest thereto for the purpose of
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v- Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389
Haridas Das -v- Smt. Usha Rani Banik reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78
P.N. Eswara Iyer v- The Registrar
Parsion Devi v- Sumitri Devi reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715
S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. -v- State of Bihar and others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 166
The court clarified the limited scope of review and the need for parties to approach the court with 'clean hands' and emphasized the finality of judgments to maintain judicial justice.
Aggrieved parties can seek review of judicial orders even if not originally involved, and concessions made by a delegatee beyond their authority are not binding on the delegator.
Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record; it cannot involve re-evaluation of evidence or serve as an appeal.
The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence not within the knowledge of the party seeking review at the time of the original order. The accuracy of g....
Court can exercise its power of review only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and an error which is to be fished out by a process of reasoning cannot be said to be an error ap....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.