Authority's refusal to consider compensation claims due to procedural delays and lack of established rights is lawful; timely representation is essential in claims.

JUDGMENT : 

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the order dated 24.11.2022 as passed by the respondent no. 2/authority whereby and whereunder the said respondent no. 2/authority declined to consider the representation of the writ petitioners for disbursement of compensation on account of acquisition of land of their predecessor-in-interest as well as for grant of land loser certificate favourably.

2. It is pertinent to mention herein that the respondent no. 2/authority passed such reasoned order under challenge pursuant to the judgment and order dated 05.09.2022 as passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 19511 of 2021.

3. In course of hearing, Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the order under challenge dated 24.11.2022. Attention of this Court is also drawn to Page Nos. 6 and 7 of the supplementary affidavit being copies of two representations dated 09.01.2012 and 16.01.2012 as submitted by the writ petitioners.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that from the copies of the said two representations dated 09.01.2012 and 16.01.2012, it would reveal that the writ petitioners brought to the notice of the competent authority i.e., the respondent no. 4/authority herein that the present writ petitioners are also the legal heirs of their predecessor-in-interest, Lal Mohan Bera (since deceased) apart from their brothers to whom the railway authority has disbursed compensation on account of acquisition of land of their predecessor-in-interest and also allegedly issued land loser certificate.

5. In his next limb of submission, Mr. Mukherjee draws attention of this Court to the gazette notification as published on or before 18.05.2011 as has been relied upon by the respondent no. 2/authority in his said reasoned order dated 24.11.2022. It is submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that Clause 20H(4) of the said gazette notification mandates that in the event any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.

6. It is submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that from the materials as placed before this Court, it would reveal that the railway authority without given due adherence to the said provisions disbursed the admissible amount of compensation to the sons of the original recorded owner i.e., Lal Mohan Bera depriving the present writ petitioners who are the daughters of the deceased, Lal Mohan Bera.

7. It is thus submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that while passing the order under challenge dated 24.11.2022, the respondent no. 2/authority has failed to visualize the true spirit of Clause 20H(4) of the said notification and thus, wrongly came to a finding that the representation of the writ petitioners had got no merit.

8. It is thus submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that appropriate relief/reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioners in terms of the prayers made in the instant writ petition thereby directing the respondents/authority to disburse the proportionate amount of compensation in favour of the writ petitioners vis-à-vis issuance of land loser certificate to them.

9. Per contra, Mr. Jha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 i.e., Union of India and its instrumentalities, in course of his submission draws attention of this Court to the report in the form of affidavit as has been affirmed on 19.02.2024. It i