Back
2025 Supreme(Cal) 106
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Partha Sarathi Sen, J.
Rajabala Mondal – Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondent
W.P.A. No. 17786 of 1998 With Can 1 Of 2001 (Old No.Can 10215 of 2001)
Decided On : 20-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, Mr. S.P. Pahari, Mr. A. Pradhan, Mr. T.K. Mahapatra
For the Respondent: Mr. Alok Banerjee, Mr. Ashok Kumar Jena, Mr. Swapan Kumar Pal
A petitioner must prove ownership and possession of land to challenge acquisition proceedings, and significant delay in filing may lead to dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The writ petitioner sought to quash land acquisition proceedings initiated in 1962, claiming rightful ownership and compensation. The court found that the petitioner failed to prove ownership and possession of the land, as the name was not recorded at the time of acquisition. The court emphasized that the delay in filing the petition further undermined the petitioner's claim. (Paras 5, 17, 20, 22)
(B) Delay and Laches - The court reiterated that petitions filed after a significant delay may be dismissed as they adversely affect settled rights. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitioner claimed ownership of land acquired in 1962 but was unable to substantiate his title or possession, as he was not recorded as the owner at the time of acquisition. The state argued that compensation was disbursed to other individuals.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claims due to lack of evidence of ownership and significant delay in filing the petition.
Issues: The main issues included the petitioner's ownership of the acquired land and the implications of delay in filing the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ownership or possession of the land, and the delay in seeking relief was unreasonable, justifying dismissal of the petition.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.
1. In this writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or writs against the respondent State, more specifically against the respondent no.5 authority for quashing and/or rescinding the acquisition proceeding in respect of plot of lands, particulars of which has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the instant writ petition.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that it is an admitted position that by virtue of a land acquisition proceeding as initiated in the year 1962, 26.62 acres of land was acquired by the respondent no.5 authority which was thereafter handed over to the respondent no.2 authority for construction of Haldia Dock. Drawing attention to page nos.12, 13 and 14, being the copy of the judgment as passed in G.R. Case No.396 of 1998 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldia, Purba Medinipur, as has been annexed with the written notes of argument, it is contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner has been falsely implicated in a criminal proceeding under Sections 466/468/471 IPC wherefrom he was, however, acquitted by the said court of Judicial Magistrate on 03.01.2019.
3. In course of his argument, learned advocate for the writ petitioner further draws attention of this Court from page nos.16 to 17 of the writ petition being copies of two unregistered licenses in the name of the original writ petitioner as executed in the year 1945 in respect of certain portions of the subject plots. It is argued that by virtue of the said two licenses, the writ petitioner came into possession over certain portions of the plots which are subject matter of the instant writ petition.
4. In his next fold of submission, learned advocate for the writ petitioner draws attention of this Court to the copies of RS RoR dated 29.08.1996 which has been annexed with the instant writ petition at page nos.20 and 21. Attention of this Court is also drawn to an enquiry report dated 05.06.2018 as submitted by the Jurisdictional Revenue Inspector in connection with a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that from the said RS RoR of the year 1996 and the report of 2018, it would reveal that the writ petitioner is still in possession of the aforementioned properties, particulars of which has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. Drawing further attention of this Court to page no.26 of the written notes of argument, it is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that from the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by the respondent State, it would reveal that it is the case of the respondent State that they have disbursed compensation to one Sadananda Sardar, Sayanda Sardar and Tararani Sardar, who according to the writ petitioner were not the recorded owner of the alleged acquired plots of land and thus, the said persons are not entitled to any compensation as prayed for.
5. It is submitted further that since the alleged acquisition proceeding of 1962 under the Act-I of 1894 was concluded without disbursing payment of compensation to the rightful owner of the said acquired land that is the writ petitioner herein, the entire acquisition proceeding may be treated as vitiated and therefore, an appropriate writ may be issued against the respondent State, more specifically against the respondent no.5 for quantification of the compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act of 2013’).
6. Per contra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the order dated 16.03.2021 and the order dated 31.03.2023 as passed in the instant writ petition by two separate coordinate Benches of this Court.
7. It reveals that by an order dated 16.03.2021, the writ petitioner was directed to adduce documents demonstrating that the writ petition
