IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen WPA 18147 of 2023 Radharani Sardar & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the petitioners : Mr. Tanmoy Sett, Ms. Trishna Sarkar, Mr. Swakshar Kumar Mondal For the State : Mr. Vimal Kumar Shahi, Ld. AGP, Mrs. Tanuja Basak Heard on : 05.08.2025 Judgement on : 05.08.2025 PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:

1. The parties to the instant writ petition are represented by their respective learned advocates.

2. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities, more specifically, against the respondent no. 4/authority to determine the compensation as payable to the writ petitioners in terms of Act XXX of 2013.

3. At the time of hearing, Mr. Sett, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to Page Nos. 17 to 19 of the instant writ petition, being copies of LR&ROR and RS&ROR as stood in the name of one Dhirendra Nath Sardar who died on 03.04.2008 leaving behind the writ petitioners as his legal heirs within the meaning of Hindu Succession Act.

4. Drawing attention to Page Nos. 25 to 27 of the instant writ petition, Mr. Sett submits before this Court that in an earlier round of litigation, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 14.03.2022 as passed in WPA 1432 of 2022 directed the respondent no. 2 therein to consider the representation of the writ petitioners in accordance with law and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within a stipulated period after giving due opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners.

5. It is submitted further by Mr. Sett that from Page Nos. 31 to 33 of the instant writ petition, it would reveal that on 03.01.2023, the writ petitioner no. 2 submitted a comprehensive representation with the respondent no. 2/authority which came to be disposed of by the respondent no. 4/authority by passing a reasoned order dated 10.02.2023, a copy of which has been annexed at Page Nos. 38 to 46 of the instant writ petition.

6. In course of hearing, Mr. Sett draws attention of this Court to Page Nos. 40, 45 and 46 of the instant writ petition being different portions of the said order dated 10.02.2023. It is submitted that from Page No. 40 of the instant writ petition, it would reveal that the respondent no. 2/authority came to a finding that two plots of land belonging to the Dhirendra Nath Sardar was requisitioned under Section 3(1) of the Act II of 1948 and those two plots of land stood vested by publication of notice under Section 4(1a) of Act II of 1948 and after obtaining possession of the said two plots of land, the said two plots of land were handed over to the requiring body subsequently, a notice under Section 9(3B) of Act – I of 1894 was issued, however, no award was declared in the name of the writ petitioners.

7. It is further submitted from Page Nos. 45 and 46 of instant writ petition, it would reveal that the respondent no. 2/authority came to a finding that the present writ petitioners will be paid compensation. It is further submitted by Mr. Sett that from Page No. 19 of the report in the form of affidavit as submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 4/authority, it would reveal that the present writ petitioners were awarded a paltry sum towards compensation. It is further submitted by Mr. Sett that from Page No. 11 of the said report, it would reveal that the respondent no. 4/authority had made a venture to justify its action by saying that since the acquisition took place in the year 1976-77, the award would be prepared under Section 11 of Act I of 1894 in the light of an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as per provision of Section 24(1)(b) of Act XXX of 2013.

8. It is submitted further that being aggrieved with such quantum, the writ petitioners again approached the respondent no. 2/authority by submit