IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that it cannot compel compliance beyond the actual possession of land by the State, emphasizing the importance of accurate representation of land possession.

JUDGMENT :

Jay Sengupta, J:

1. These are a contempt application for alleged violation of this Court’s order dated 31.07.2018 passed in WPA 30720 of 2014, thereby directing restoring back possession of land, and a cross application for recalling of the said order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant in the contempt application, at the outset, submitted as follows. The writ petitioner moved the writ petition, inter alia, praying for restoring back the possession of his land taken over by the respondents/contemnors herein. The Hon’ble Justice Protik Prakash Banerjee (as His Lordship then was), upon hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner and upon recording non representation of the respondents despite several opportunities, was pleased to dispose of the matter, inter alia, directing the respondents restore the possession of L.R. Plot No.2287, Khatian No.86, J.L. No.38, Mouja Parul, Arambagh Police Station, Hooghly with a further direction that the writ petitioner be put into possession of the concerned land within a period of 72 hours from the date of communication of this order. Despite due communication and full knowledge of the order of the Court since the order was not complied with the instant contempt petition had been filed. Vide solemn order dated 20.09.2019, contempt rule was issued against contemnors nos. 1 and 5. Rule/Subpoena was duly served (as per report dated 20.11.2019). Affidavit of alleged contemnors nos.1 and 5 was submitted (affirmed by one Indranil Chakraborty, Special Land Acquisition Collector, Hooghly, Contemnor no. 2). It was well settled proposition that in a contempt proceeding rule had to be answered by the concerned contemnors individually. None other than the contemnor himself could answer the rule. It appeared that from the affidavit of Mr. Manoj Pant, the then Principal Secretary and Land Reforms Commissioner, affirmed on 18.11.2019, he was duly apprised of the order of the Hon’ble Court. It further appeared that Agri-Irrigation Department (AI) Arambagh, AI Sub Division, at present under Water Resources, Investigation and Development, Government, of West Bengal at some point of time had taken over i) the possession of 22 dec. of land within which a submersible pump was set up in 03 dec. of land and ii) an office structure was built over rest 19 dec. of land of the same plot, started supplying irrigation water since 31.01.1964. The suit land was neither acquisitioned nor any proposal for acquisition. Till date no proposal for acquisition or direct purchase of suit land had been made. Paragraph 6 of the aforementioned affidavit would amply demonstrate the non application of mind and mechanical approach. No sincere apology had been tendered nor any whisper was there as to how the order had been complied. It appeared from the affidavit affirmed by contemnor no.2 that he had also admitted that there was neither any acquisition nor any proposal for purchase was ever initiated and 22 decimals of land had been taken in 1964. The order passed by the Hon’ble Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas in the earlier writ petition was also not complied with. In respect of the order under contempt the District Magistrate sought for advice from the contemnor no.1, but no response/step had been taken so far. In the order under contempt a liberty had been granted to the writ petitioner to renew his prayer(s) for compensation in a separate proceedings. But until the possession of the suit land was handed over to the petitioner and he was restored back the peaceful and vacation possession such a situation did not arise. Again an affidavit had been affirmed on 24.04.2023 by one Prabhat Kumar Mishra claiming himself to be the Principal Secretary of Water Resources Investigation and Development Department, Government of West Bengal. From the said affidavit it appeared that a volte face stand had been taken by him in as much as in paragraph no.4 it had been contended that the State had never been nor was in possessio