Penalties for misleading affidavits must be proportionate. While courts may sanction officials for providing contradictory or false statements, punishments exceeding financial costs, such as negative service record annotations, require a balancing of the official's conduct against mitigating factors to ensure fairness and proportionality.

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:

1. The present challenge has been preferred on behalf of the State authorities against a judgment dated March 7, 2014 passed in WP 8477 (W) of 2003.

2. At the outset, learned Senior counsel appearing for the State/appellants submits that the appellants would confine their arguments to the caustic remarks made by the learned Single Judge against the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (B.L. & L.R.O.) and the penal action taken against her to the extent that cost of Rs.10,000/- was directed to be paid by the said B.L. & L.R.O. which was to be deducted from her salary and the service book of the B.L. & L.R.O. was directed to record such punishment.

3. Learned senior counsel contends that the said caustic remarks in the impugned judgment were made on the premise of two affidavits filed by the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. in connection with the writ petition.

4. In the first such affidavit, affirmed on August 13, 2013, the B.L. & L.R.O. had inter alia stated that the writ petitioner, “cleverly knowing the facts that the suit plot 1338 is acquired property and suppressing the facts and misrepresentation, took money from the Bank”. It was further stated, inter alia, that “the writ petitioner admitted in the application that the case land at plot no. 1338 is retained land of Huddut’s members and that their allegations for purchase from the retained land of Huddut’s family having no right of ownership. The deed in question executed in the year 1966 in favour of the writ petitioner is alleged to be void”.

5. The learned Single Judge, being dissatisfied with the said statements, inasmuch as those were not supported by sufficient documents to show that there was actually an acquisition of plot no. 1338, granted another opportunity to the B.L. & L.R.O. to clarify her stand by way of a second (supplementary) affidavit.

6. Such supplementary affidavit was affirmed on February 25, 2014 and filed in court.

7. In the supplementary affidavit, the B.L. & L.R.O. stated, inter alia, that on 29.09.1964 the Executive Engineer, Calcutta Special Road Division, Government of West Bengal sent a notice to the Collector, Howrah regarding land acquisition as per L.A. Case No. 3 (Act- II) of 1963-64 “claiming possession”, inter alia, of plot no. 1338 and that these plots were notified for acquisition of the “Railway Colony case”.

8. The B.L. & L.R.O. further went on to assert in such supplementary affidavit that the right, title and interest of intermediaries in respect of plot no. 1338 were vested to the State in respect of the said lands as per provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 .

9. Learned senior counsel arguing for the appellants submits that the B.L. & L.R.O., in view of the documents in her possession, was under the bona fide impression that acquisition has already taken place in respect of several plots including the disputed plot no. 1338. In support of such contention, learned senior counsel places reliance on a letter written by the Executive Engineer, Calcutta Special Road Division on September 29, 1964 to the Collector, Howrah where it was stated that as per the proposal of Land Acquisition Case No. 3 (Act-II) of 1963-64, the said plots may kindly be delivered to the said Division. There is an almost illegible interpolation by hand at the top right hand corner