Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 1656
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Debangsu Basak, Md. Shabbar Rashidi, JJ
The Chief Executive Officer, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Sushmita Guin – Respondent
FMA 724 of 2025 | FMA 725 of 2025 | IA NO: CAN/1/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Kishore Dutta, Mr. Satyajit Talukder, Mr. Arindom Chatterjee
For the Respondents: Mr. Supratim Dhar, Mrs. Madhu Priya, Mr. Dhananjay Nayak
For the State: Md. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. Suddhadev Adak
Court upheld that title disputes over land ownership must be resolved before addressing acquisition and compensation claims.
Headnote:(A) Relevant laws include the principles of land acquisition and compensation. Key legal points discuss the right, title, and interest concerning immovable property transactions, with reference to the Supreme Court case of Delhi Development Authority versus Shyamo & Others. Facts of the case involve disputes over the ownership of land subject to legacy sales and compensation for non-acquisition. Findings of Court highlight that the plaintiffs had rightful claims for compensation based on established ownership practices. Issues centered on whether the petitioners possessed enforceable rights over the property. Ratio Decidendi confirms that title disputes must be resolved before mandating acquisition or compensation.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments about ownership rights and compensation responsibilities. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 2. details regarding the land's usage and lack of acquisition proceedings. (Para 6) |
| 3. clarification of title interests regarding the heirs of deceased parties. (Para 8 , 9 , 15) |
| 4. court reviews appeals on land acquisition orders. (Para 10) |
| 5. establishing the facts regarding land use and compensation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. the absence of title disputes affects appeal outcomes. (Para 17 , 19) |
Mr. Suddhadev Adak, Advocate Heard on : 17.06.2025 Judgment on : 17.06.2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1. Two appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they emanate out of the same impugned judgment and order dated October 18, 2023 passed in two writ petitions being W.P.A. 13179 of 2021 and W.P.A. 11125 of 2019.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge directed the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority to forward a proposal for acquisition of RS Dag no.2829 within mouja Kasba to the appropriate authority of the State Government forthwith and positively within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Immediately upon receipt of such proposal, the appropriate authorities of the State were directed to initiate steps for acquisition of land in accordance with law and conclude the proceedings including payment of compensation to the writ petitioners and/or any person interested or who may be entitled to such compensation within the time period framed therein.
3. Learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants submits that, the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Sadhan Sarkar do not possess any right, title and interest in respect of the immovable property concerned. He submits that, late Dwarika Prasad Jeswara did not sell the immovable property to late Sadhan Sarkar. Therefore the writ petition of the heirs and legal representatives of late Sadhan Sarkar was not maintainable.
4. Learned Advocate General relies upon (2023) 12 Supreme Court Cases
756 (Delhi Development Authority versus Shyamo & Others.) for the proposition that, the writ petitioners of W.P.A. 13179 of 2021 before the Writ Court did not possess any right, title, interest in respect of the immovable property, and therefore not entitled to any relief.
5. Learned Advocate General contends that, on the date of the so-called transfer by late Dwarika Prasad Jeswara to late Sadhan Sarkar, late Dwarika Prasad Jeswara did not possess any right, title, interest in respect of immovable property concerned.
6. State and private respondents are represented.
7. Two writ petitions were filed being W.P.A.11125 of 2019 and W.P.A. 13179 of 2021. Essentially, both the writ petitions sought issuance of writ of mandamus to command the authorities to acquire the plot of land and pay compensation to the writ petitioners.
8. Two writ petitions revolve around a part of original CS Plot no.2642 under C.S. Khatian No.924 within Kasba Mouja measuring about 1.44 acres. Several bata plots were curved out from original C.S Plot No.2642 during revisional settlement. Subject batta plot in the two writ petitions are R.S. plot no.2642/2829. This subject batta plot being RS Plot No.2642/2829 was subsequently utilized for the purpose of construction of Rashbehari Connector. No acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of Plot No.1642/2829.
9. R.S. Plot No.2642/2829 was subsequently numbered as RS Plot no.2829.It measures about 22 decimals of land. Out of RS Plot No.2642/2829 measuring about 22 decimal of land, 12 cottahs were sold by a registered sale deed bearing no.907 for the year 1974 in favour of late Sadhan Sarkar by Dwarika Prasad Jeswara.
10. Heirs and legal representatives of deceased Dwarika Prasad Jeswara filed W.P.A. 11125 of 2019 while the heirs and legal representatives of Sadhan Sarkar filed W.P.A.13179 of 2021. Both the sets of writ petitioners claimed that, they are entitled to compensation on account of non acquisition of their share immovab
