SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Cal) 875

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
Enayet Ali Molla & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
WPA No. 19047 of 2023
Decided On : 14-08-202

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee.
For the Respondents: Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Mr. Chayan Gupta, Mr. Sandip Dasgupta, Mr. Saaqib Siddiqui, Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra, Mr. Amartya Pal.

A landowner whose land is acquired by the government for public purpose is entitled to compensation.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - HIDCO - ACQUISITION OF LAND - ACQUISITION OF 77 DECIMAL OF LAND IN PLOT NO.1358/1445 - PETITIONERS CLAIMING OWNERSHIP OF 57.50 DECIMAL OF LAND - PETITIONERS' LAND WAS NEVER ACQUIRED BY HIDCO - PETITIONERS ENTITLED TO MUTATE THEIR NAMES IN THE RECORD OF RIGHTS.

Fact of the Case:

Mother Ali Molla, since deceased became the owner of 57.50 decimal of land in RS dag No.1358/1445 corresponding to CS Dag No.1346, RS khatian No.85 of mouza-Chakpachuria, JL No.33 within the P.S Rajarhat. He purchased the subject land from one Shanti Rani Dey by virtue of a registered deed of sale being deed No.3346 of 1973 dated 4th May, 1973. The petitioners are the legal heirs and successors of the said Mother Ali Molla, since deceased. During the life time of Mother Ali Molla he did not record his name in RS Record of Rights. After the death of Mother Ali Molla, the present petitioners moved an application before the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (LRTT) by filing OA Case No.1908 of 2022. The said application was disposed of directing the jurisdictional Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, respondent No.5 herein, to dispose of Misc Case No.941 of 2015 dated 29th December, 2015 which the petitioners filed for mutating their names in respect of the subject land in the Record of Rights, within six months from the date of communication of the order in accordance with law and giving opportunity to interested parties of hearing.

Finding of the Court:

The petitioners are entitled to get appropriate relief against respondent No.3 and 4. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. A writ under nature of mandamus be issued forbearing the respondents No.3 and 4 from encroaching upon any portion of the subject land comprised in RS Dag No.1358/1445 corresponding to Khatian No.85 corresponding to CS Dag No.1346 of Mouza-Chakpachuria.

Issues: Whether the petitioners' land was acquired by HIDCO?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioners are the legal heirs and successors of Mother Ali Molla, since deceased, who purchased the subject land from one Shanti Rani Dey by virtue of a registered deed of sale being deed No.3346 of 1973 dated 4th May, 1973. 2. The petitioners' land was never acquired by HIDCO. 3. The petitioners are entitled to mutate their names in the Record of Rights.

Final Decision: The instant writ petition is allowed. A writ under nature of mandamus be issued forbearing the respondents No.3 and 4 from encroaching upon any portion of the subject land comprised in RS Dag No.1358/1445 corresponding to Khatian No.85 corresponding to CS Dag No.1346 of Mouza-Chakpachuria.

JUDGMENT :

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

1. One Mother Ali Molla, since deceased became the owner of 57.50 decimal of land in RS dag No.1358/1445 corresponding to CS Dag No.1346, RS khatian No.85 of mouza-Chakpachuria, JL No.33 within the P.S Rajarhat. He purchased the subject land from one Shanti Rani Dey by virtue of a registered deed of sale being deed No.3346 of 1973 dated 4th May, 1973. The petitioners are the legal heirs and successors of the said Mother Ali Molla, since deceased. During the life time of Mother Ali Molla he did not record his name in RS Record of Rights. After the death of Mother Ali Molla, the present petitioners moved an application before the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (LRTT) by filing OA Case No.1908 of 2022. The said application was disposed of directing the jurisdictional Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, respondent No.5 herein, to dispose of Misc Case No.941 of 2015 dated 29th December, 2015 which the petitioners filed for mutating their names in respect of the subject land in the Record of Rights, within six months from the date of communication of the order in accordance with law and giving opportunity to interested parties of hearing.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that when the respondent No.5 came to the spot for field inspection, the representatives of the respondents No.3 and 4 raised objection for the first time and the petitioners came to learn that the said respondents No.3 and 4 wrote a letter to the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) on 22nd May, 2023 making out a case to the effect that by virtue of acquisition proceeding, HIDCO acquired 77 decimals of land from RS Plot No.1358/1445 and the rest portion of RS Plot No.1358/1445 was acquired in or about 1953-54 by the Irrigation and Waterways Department, Government of West Bengal. After taking over possession, Bagjola Canal was excavated. A copy of the said representation was forwarded by the respondent No.6 to the BL and LRO on 31st July, 2023. The petitioners further state that the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Waterways Department vide Memo No.4L-3/747 informed the HIDCO sometimes in the year 2015 that the said plot in question had never been acquired by the Irrigation and Waterways Department. It is the specific case of the petitioners that petitioner’s land was never acquired in any acquisition proceeding by the respondent No.6 on being requisitioned by the HIDCO. However, the respondent authorities are trying to restrain the petitioners from mutating their names recorded in the Record of Rights and also trying to encroach upon the land of the petitioners without having no right, title and interest over the said land. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition for following reliefs:-

    “(A) Writ in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondents from encroaching upon the land of the petitioners located and situated at Mouza-Chakpachuria, JL. No-33 comprised in RS Dag No. 1358/1445 corresponding to CS Dag No. 1346, RS Khatian No. 85.

(B) Writ in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondents from obstructing the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Rajarhat, to survey the land of the petitioners located and situated at Mouza-Chakpachuria, JL. No-33 comprised in RS Dag No. 1358/1445 corresponding to CS Dag No. 1346, RS Khatian No. 85.

(C) A Writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to transmit the entire records of the case to this Hon'ble Court so that considerable justice may be rendered;

(D) Rule ni-si in terms of prayers (A), and (B) above;

(E) Ad-interim order in terms of prayers (A) and (B) till the disposal of this application.

(F) Such further Order or Orders and/or Direction or Directions as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper for the ends of Justice.”

3. Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents No.3 and 4 entered appearance on notice and raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground th

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top