IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Subhendu Samanta, J.
IN THE MATTER OF :
Gopal Jhunjhunwala - Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
WPA 3457 of 2019, IA No.:CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No.:CAN 3850 of 2020), CAN 2 of 2021
Decided On : 11-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seeking mandamus for compliance with prior court order. (Para 1) |
| 2. understanding the context of prior court orders. (Para 2) |
| 3. detailing government's offer for land compensation. (Para 3) |
| 4. calculation of rent compensation by the state. (Para 4) |
| 5. petitioner's grievances regarding state actions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 6. state's defense in following court directions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 7. discussing the court's awareness of existing laws. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 8. evaluation of kmda and state compliance with directions. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 9. critique of direct purchase policy application. (Para 18 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 10. order for further assessment and proposals. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 11. final order and disposition of the case. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
Subhendu Samanta, J.
1. Instant writ petition has been filed seeking mandamus upon the respondents authorities to comply with an order dated 16th July, 2018 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in WP No. 6330 (W) of 2018 (Gopal Jhunjhunwala) and Ors Vs. State of West Bengal)
2. To properly understand the issues involved herein operative portion of the order of Co-ordinate Bench dated 16th July, 2018 set out herein.
On the basis of undisputed fact, there is no doubt in my mind that an individual has been deprived of this property without recourse to law and to undone such unconstitutional act, the property is required to be reverted back to the owner. But this court cannot overlook the fact that such property was required and utilized for larger public purposes and for construction of a connector facilitating the citizenry of the city to have smooth and more convenient journey from different parts of the city.
This court finds that the possession of the land of the petitioner cannot be given to him as the situation which is prevalent at present, renders it irreversible. Since the KMDA as requisitioning body have been informed to make a fresh proposal, this court permits the KMDA to make a fresh proposal within four weeks from date strictly in terms of the extant Rules/Guidelines or Act applicable in this regard.
The State is directed to take recourse to acquisition of the property as per the extant guidelines and it goes without saying that the entire exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the fresh proposal from the KMDA "
Though this court finds that this direction has been passed to mitigate the situation and to secure the ends of justice yet this court cannot brush aside that the petitioner has been deprived of his property without the payment of a single farthing.
The Land Acquisition Collector, South 24- Parganas is directed to determine the rent compensation from the date of the possession till the date of an acquisition of right, title and interest by the State and shall pay the same to the petitioner along with an interest of 6% per annum. The said Land Acquisition Collector shall complete the entire exercise within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
With this observation, the writ-petition is disposed of.No order as to costs.
The personal appearance of the Additional District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas, who is present in court today in compliance with the order dated June28, 2018, is dispensed with.
Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, be given to the parties, if applied for, on priority basis.
3. In terms of above mentioned direction of this court Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority being respondent No. 2 and 3 of instant writ petition make a fresh proposal to the State Government vide their communication dated 7/9/2018 for requisition of the land in question admeasuring 0.31 acres ( as per joint survey of CS Dag No. 236 dated 10/8/2018). On the basis of the said proposal, the Government of West Bengal being respondent No. 1,4,5 and 6 adopted a policy of direct purchase vide notification No. 756-LP.1A-03/14(PT)(ii) dated 25/02/2016 by such, concerned Department of Governm
The court ruled that the State must adhere to proper land acquisition processes, ensuring just compensation as mandated under applicable laws, rejecting the direct purchase policy as improper.
Requisition proceedings under 1948 Act lapsed without proper compensation; State must initiate acquisition under 2013 Act.
The State must comply with due process for land acquisition and compensate fairly; failure to follow procedures amounts to a constitutional violation.
Subsequent purchasers of land can only claim compensation based on their vendors' titles and cannot challenge acquisition proceedings initiated under different statutes.
No award under Section 11 of 1894 Act for specific land post Section 6 declaration causes lapse under Section 11A; mandates fresh acquisition under 2013 Act; delay/laches inapplicable, protects Artic....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.