30.07.2025.

Ct.No.7.

as WPA 3888 of 2017 Shyam Sundar Sharma Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Tanmay Mukherjee, Mr. Swapan Kumar Kar.

…for the Petitioner.

Mr. Ansar Mandal, Ld. AGP, Ms. Somashree Dey.

…for the State.

Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Mrs. Debasree Dhamali, Ms. Riya Ghosh. …for the SBSTC.

1. By preferring this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner in respect of certain plots of land, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2013 Act’).

2. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate representing the petitioner, submits that for the purpose of constructing a bus depot for the South Bengal State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"), the concerned respondents initiated land acquisition proceedings vide Case No. LA-II/36 of 1990–91, invoking the provisions of Act II of 1948. In pursuance thereof, a notice of requisition under Section 3(1) of the said Act was issued. Subsequently, possession of the petitioner’s land was taken and handed over to the Requiring Body.

3. He submits that the Requiring Body has already constructed the bus depot and has been utilizing the petitioner’s lands. However, no notice under Section 4(1a) of Act II of 1948 was ever published in the official gazette, and thereafter, no steps were taken to declare the award as per the relevant provisions of the applicable statutes, and no compensation has been paid to the petitioner.

4. He submits that, with the passage of time, Act II of 1948 has expired, and no steps have been taken to revive the land acquisition proceedings by taking recourse to Section 9(3A) of the West Bengal Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997. He further submits that it is needless to state that Act 1 of 1894 stood repealed and, therefore, the respondents have no other alternative but to publish the award and pay compensation in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 2013 Act. He prays for an appropriate direction upon the respondent authorities to declare the award and to pay compensation to the petitioner under the provisions of the

2013 Act.

5. Mrs. Dhamali, learned Advocate representing respondent Nos. 5 and 6, submits that the Requiring Body took possession of the land on 19th January, 1991 along with a construction on those lands. However, she submits that a bus depot was constructed on those lands. She further submits that in 2014, possession of the land was taken over by the State from the Corporation and was subsequently handed over to the Calcutta Tram Company by the State.

6. Ms. Dey, learned Advocate appearing for the State, produces a list of dates filed by a party in connection with a writ petition registered as W.P. 3888 (W) of 2017, and submits that, in the said case, the Requiring Body had directly purchased the land from the landowners, and the value of the land, as assessed by the Land Reforms and Land Revenue (LR & LR) Department along with applicable interest, was duly paid to the landowners. In this case also, she submits, the State may be allowed to purchase the lands directly from the land-owners.

7. In response, Mr. Mukherjee submits that the list of dates filed in connection with another writ petition bears no relevance to the present case. He further submits that, in the instant matter, no proposal for direct purchase of land from the petitioner was ever made by the authorities. Moreover, the petitioner is not willing to accept any such proposal.

8. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record.

9. The record reveals that, with the objective of constructing a bus depot, a portion of land from Mouza– Sangmura, District–Barasat, North 24-Parganas, including the petitioner’s land comprising R.S. Plot Nos. 241, 242, 243, 244, 245