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

2025 Supreme(Cal) 95

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.
Goleara Bibi - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
WPA 22361 of 2023, WPA 22358 of 2023, WPA 22363 of 2023, WPA 22365 of 2023
Decided on : 16-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sk. Rejaul Alam
For the Respondent: Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi, Ms. Tanusree Ghosh, Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Ld. DSG, Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Subhasish Bandyopadhyay

The right to compensation for acquired land must be established by land losers or their heirs before the authority, and failure to do so contemporaneously with the acquisition process results in the loss of that right.

Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 20A, 20D, and 20E - Land acquisition - Petitioners, claiming to be legal heirs of land losers, sought compensation for land acquired by railway authority - Petitioners failed to lodge claims contemporaneously with acquisition process initiated in 2010 - Court held that Record of Rights does not confer title and petitioners must establish claims unimpeachably - Writ petitions dismissed. (Paras 11-17)

(B) Right to compensation - The right to receive compensation for acquired land is a constitutional and legal right, but must be established before the authority. (Paras 13-14)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners claimed compensation for land acquired by railway authority, asserting they were unaware of their ownership until 2022, despite the acquisition process commencing in 2010. They submitted representations for compensation but received no response.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not lodge claims during the acquisition process and failed to establish their title to the land. The court emphasized that compensation claims must be made contemporaneously with the acquisition process.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners had a valid claim for compensation and whether they had established their title to the acquired land.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners must demonstrate their title and eligibility for compensation, and that the acquisition process had concluded with compensation already paid to other co-sharers.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Aniruddha Roy, J.

Mr. Rejaul Alam, learned Advocate appears for the petitioners.

Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi, learned Deputy Solicitor General appears for Union of India, he files the reports in the form of affidavits in all these writ petitions, the reports are taken on record. Copies have already been served upon the petitioner.

The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners files exceptions in the form of affidavits to all such reports in all these writ petitions, such exceptions are also taken on record.

Facts:

1. The case of each writ petitioners in these bunch of writ petitions are identical and same. The learned Advocates appearing for the parties have also admitted that the case made out by the petitioners in their respective writ petitions are identical and same. The stand taken by the respondents in their reports are identical and same. The stand taken by the petitioners in their exceptions filed to each such report are also identical and same.

2. The petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs of the original land losers claimed compensation as land losers in respect of their lands acquired by the railway authority. The original land losers were the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners.

3. The specific averment in the writ petition is that the railway authority issued a notification on October 21, 2010, for acquisition of land but the petitioners had no knowledge whether they were the owners of the subject lands or any part thereof. In or about March 25, 2022 after searching and collecting the Record of Rights for the first time the petitioners came to know that they are the recorded owners of the subject land as co-sharers. The petitioners then submitted their representations in or around March, 2022 with a prayer for compensation and Land Losers Certificates but till date and to issue the Land Loser Certificate the authority has not taken any step to release such compensation. The petitioners pursued their claims before the jurisdictional authority by successive representations. No step has been taken by the authority hence, this writ petition.

Submissions:

4. Sk. Rejaul Alam, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners referring to the Record of Rights annexed to the writ petitions submits that the Record of Right reflects the names of the petitioners in respect of the self-same acquired lands. Therefore, the petitioners are the recorded owners and are eligible to receive compensation and Land Loser Certificates on account of the acquired land, as they are the recorded owners. Learned Advocate for the petitioners further submits that the other co-sharers in respect of the self-same acquired lands, being the private respondent nos. 4 to 6, have already received compensation proportionate to their share-holding on the land and the certificate. The land all material time was an undivided land without partition. The petitioners belonging to the same class as that of the respondent nos. 4 to 6 claim the same benefit being the compensation and the Land Loser Certificate.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submits that immediately after finding their names in the Record of Rights in the year 2021-2022 the petitioners submitted their representations in or around March, 2022 before the authority for claiming compensation and Land Losers Certificates but the authority has not taken any step thereunder.

6. Learned Deputy Solicitor General Mr. Trivedi appearing for the Union of India/railways referring to the reports in the form of affidavits which are on record submits that way back on May 19, 2010 the notification was published in exercise of power under Section 20A sub-Section (1) of the Railways Act 1989 (for short the Railways Act) Annexure - A1 at page 13 to the Report. The said notification also spoke of any person interested in the lands mentioned in the notification within thirty days from the date of the publication of the said notification must submit their objections in terms of sub-Section (1)

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