Court mandates proper acquisition procedures and compensation disbursement for requisitioned land under specific statutory provisions.

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : –

1. The parties are represented by their respective learned counsels.

2. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent authorities for initiating a proceeding under Act XXX of 2013 to determine and pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of the land of the writ petitioners, particulars of which has been mentioned in paragraph 1 of the instant writ petition.

3. In course of his submission, Mr. Pan, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits before this court undisputedly pursuant to publication of a notice under Section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act II of 1948’ in short) the possession of the land by the writ petitioners was taken on 07.02.1990. It is further submitted by Mr. Pan that the respondent authorities however failed to acquire the land of the writ petitioners by publication of notice under Section 4 (1a) of Act II of

1948.

4. It is further submitted that with effect from 31.03.1997 the life time of Act II of 1948 came to an end.

5. At this juncture, Mr. Pan draws attention of this court to the provision of Section 9(3a)(West Bengal Amendment) of the Act I of 1894. It is submitted that it is the specific case of the writ petitioners that in terms of the said amendment, the Collector has failed and neglected to serve any notice upon the writ petitioners and in absence of such notice, there cannot be any yardstick for determining the value of the land which has been requisitioned by the respondent authorities.

6. It is thus submitted by Mr. Pan that since Act II of 1948 and Act I of

1894 have already been repealed and also since the respondent authorities have substantially utilized the aforementioned land of the writ petitioners, appropriate writ/writs may be issued commanding the respondent authorities more specifically; the respondent no.5 authority herein to initiate a proceeding for acquisition and determining compensation in terms of the provisions of Act XXX of

2013.

7. It is further submitted by Mr. Pan that from the report as submitted by the respondent authorities, it would reveal that the respondent no.2/authority had accepted that acquisition process under Act II of 1948 was not completed on account of failure to publish notification under Section 4 (1a) of the Act II of 1948.

8. Per contra, Ms. Sinha, learned advocate appearing for the State and duly lead by Mr. Dhar, learned Senior Advocate, strongly contended that in the report as submitted before this court by the State on behalf of the respondent no.5, it would reveal that in connection with L.A. case L.A. II/17 of 1987-88 notice for requisition under Section 3 (1) of Act II of 1948 was published on 19.01.1990 in respect of the requisition of land and possession of the said land was handed over to the requiring body on 07.02.1990, though notification under Section 4 (1a) of Act II of 1948 was not published.

9. It is further submitted that the predecessors in interest of the present writ petitioners have obtained 80% of the land value in terms of Section 8B of Act II of 1948.

10. It is thus submitted by Ms. Sinha that the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief, as prayed for.

11. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, it appears that sufficient materials have been placed before this court that though the land of