Co-owners entitled to same enhanced compensation, including 12% per annum, based on previous orders and the principle of prorata compensation. Land Acquisition Collector bound to execute order for enhanced compensation and has no authority to determine the issue afresh.

JUDGMENT :

Suvra Ghosh, J.

1. Since the three writ petitions pertain to similar issues, they are taken up for consideration together and proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The petitioners have assailed the order passed by the Collector, Land Acquisition, Howrah at 29th July, 2022 and have prayed for parity with the other co-owners of the plots in question who have been granted enhanced compensation amount including 12% per annum on the market value of the land.

3. The facts which are not in dispute are recorded herein below:-

The plots in question were requisitioned under The Defence of India Act, 1939 for construction of a godown for storage of food grains. After the lifetime of the said Act, the plots were governed by The West Bengal Requisition Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1951 and notification was published in the Calcutta Gazette following which an award was declared on 18th November, 1987 in the L.A. case being no. 1(Act VIII) of 1979-80. Being aggrieved by the assessment of compensation made by the Collector, some of the land losers filed an application for enhancement of the same before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, being the Learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Howrah. By an order passed on 15th September, 1989, the Tribunal enhanced the compensation to Rs.20,000 per cottah in respect of all kinds of lands and further awarded 30% solatium and additional compensation of 12% per annum as per section 23(1A) along with 15% interest from the date of compensation till payment. Due to non payment of the said amount, some of the co-owners/land losers approached this Court in a writ petition and this Court directed the concerned authority to take necessary steps regarding payment of the amount. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector, Howrah made part payment of the amount but refrained from payment @ 12% per annum. Some of the co-owners filed another writ petition before this Court and by an order passed on 16th November, 1995 in C.O. No. 15853 (W) of 1995, a coordinate Bench of this Court directed the L.A. Collector, Howrah, to act in terms of the directions contained in a letter addressed to him by the Government on 2nd September, 1992 in keeping with the enhanced award made by the Learned Special L.A. Collector in L.A. Misc. Case No. 23 of 1989, in the event there was no bar in paying the entire amount to the petitioners. A contempt application was filed for non compliance of the said order. The State carried the order of the Learned Tribunal in appeal after the delay of near 6000 days. The application filed by the State for condonation of delay was dismissed by an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by an order passed on 25th August, 2006 in F.A.T. 1218 of 2006. Subsequently the Land Acquisition Collector, Howrah disbursed the enhanced amount to the co-owners/ land losers in terms of the order passed in C.O. No. 15853(W) of 1955.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the land of the petitioners is covered by the same L.A case being no. 1 of (Act VIII) of 1979-80 and all other co-owners except the petitioners have received the enhanced amount. Several representations submitted by the petitioners before the authority for payment of the enhanced amount of compensation having fallen on deaf ears, the petitioners approached this Court in a writ petition being W.P.A. no. 12886 of 2017. By an order passed on 20th April, 2022, this Court held that the petitioners stood on the same footing as the other co-owners of the property in question who were granted compensation in terms of the order passed in C.O. No. 15853(W) of 1995 and were entitled to the same benefit. The Court directed consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioners within a stipulated time frame. Pursuant to the said order, the order impugned was passed turning down the claim of the petitioners. The petitioners have prayed for parity with the other co-owners and disbursement of the enhanced com