JUDGMENT :

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

1. Both the above mentioned writ petitions are heard together because the principal dispute is with regard to entitlement of compensation/award upon land acquisition between two alleged owners of the acquired land.

2. One Santosh Mallick, petitioner of WPA 1028 of 2022 has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities and each one of them to forthwith pass a reasoned order in respect of hearing conducted on 16th December, 2021 on the basis of the petitioner in accordance with law granting/disbursing 50% of the total compensation amount in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land acquired by the National High Way Authority.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that one Parsahnath Sarkar was the original owner in respect of 200 decimal of land by virtue of purchase sometimes in the year 1973-74. The said Parsahnath Sarkar recorded his name in the Record of Rights. Parsahnath Sarkar died leaving behind two daughters namely, Khuki Bala Sarkar and Sova Rani Sarkar (Mallick). Sova Rani is the mother of the petitioner. After the demise of Parsahnath Sarkar, Khuki Bala Sarkar and Sova Rani inherited the entire share of Parsahnath Sarkar jointly as their ejmali property. Marriage of Sova Rani was solemnized with one Anil Kr. Mallick. In the said wedlock, petitioner was born on 11th July, 1977. After the death of Sova Rani and her husband the petitioner inherited 50% share in the property left by her mother. At the time of death of Sova Rani the petitioner was minor. On or about 26th June, 1988 the father of the petitioner and Khuki Bala executed a deed in favour of one Bitan Debi and transferred certain property. In the recital of the said deed No. 5454 dated 26th June, 1988, relationship between Anil Kumar Mallick and Khuki Bala Sarkar was stayed and thereby relationship between the petitioner and Khuki Bala Sarkar was established. After the demise of his mother, petitioner was brought up by his aunt Khuki Bala. Subsequently, in order to grab the entire property Khuki Bala denounced her relationship with the present petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that while he along with Khuki Bala Sarkar were not joint possession of the said property, National Highway Authority of India acquired 60 decimals of land by virtue of acquisition process but the said Khuki Bala along with her son Rabindra Nath Sarkar falsely presented a claim before the authority concerned by the strength of some forged documents that they are the only legal heirs of Parsahnath Sarkar, since deceased. Petitioner came to know that the entire compensation amount in respect of the acquired land and structure was paid to Rabindra Nath Sarkar, son of Khuki Bala Sarkar. The petitioner further states that on 14th September, 2017 the petitioner made an objection against the award in connection with L.A.P No. 18/9-10 and LA Case No. 9/12-13 in respect of RS plot No. 3493 corresponding to LR plot No. 3855 and RS plot No. 3525 corresponding to LR plot No. 3860, RS plot No. 3525, corresponding to LR plot No. 3874 and some other plots of which the petitioner claimed 50% share along with Khuki Bala Sarkar by dint of inheritance in order to deprive the petitioner Rabindra Nath Sarkar got a forged deed of gift executed by Khuki Bala Sarkar in respect of entire property of Parsahnath Sarkar.

4. Rabindra Nath Sarkar, son of Khuki Bala Sarkar, since deceased has filed WPA No. 1228/2022 stating, inter alia, that her mother Khuki Bala Sarkar transferred 64 decimal of land to the petitioner by executing a deed of gift which was duly registered on 24th May, 2017 and accepted by the petitioner comprising of RS dag No. 3515 (LR dag No. 3850), RS dag No. 3516 (LR dag No. 3856), RS dag No. 3517 (LR dag No. 3856), RS Dag No. 3525 (LR dag No. 3874), RS dag No. 3493 (LR dag No. 3855), RS dag No. 3494 (LR dag No. 3852), RS dag No. 3492 (LR dag No. 3854), RS