IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi MAT 1878 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2024 The Chairman, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority Vs.

Pawan Kumar Chowdhury and Ors.

With MAT 2294 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2024 CAN 2 of 2024 State of West Bengal and Ors.

Vs.

Sri Pawan Kumar Chowdhury and Ors.

For the Appellant-KMDA : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. Adv. Gen.

In MAT 1878 of 2024 Mr. Satyajit Talukdar, Adv.

Mr. Arindam Chatterjee, Adv.

For the Writ Petitioners/ : Mr. Debayan Bera, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Respondents Mr. Swapan Kumar Kar, Adv. For the State in :Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Ld. AGP.

MAT 1878 of 2024 Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas, Adv.

For the State/Appellants :Mr. Rabindra Narayan Dutta, Adv.

In MAT 2294 of 2024 Mr. Arkoday Mukherjee, Adv.

Hearing Concluded on : June 12, 2025 Judgement on : July 16, 2025 subha karmakar Digitaly signed by subha karmakar Date: 2025.07.16 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Two appeals have been heard analogously as they emanate out of the same impugned judgement and order dated August 23, 2024 passed in WPA No. 10244 of 2016.

2. By the impugned judgement and order, learned Single Judge has set aside the acquisition in respect of the plots concerned and directed making over of possession thereof to the writ petitioners.

3. Learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants in MAT No.1878 of 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the first appeal for the sake of convenience) has referred to the sequence of events. He has submitted that, acquisition proceedings were initiated under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 in 1986-87 in respect of the plots concerned. Possession of the plots along with other plots had been taken on May 24, 1988. Notification under Section 4(1a) of the Act of 1948 had been published in the Calcutta Gazette, Extraordinary on December 14, 1989. Since the acquisition proceedings could not be completed within the lifetime of the Act of 1948, the same had been switched over to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by invoking the amended provisions of Section 9 (3B) of the Act of 1894.

4. Learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants in the first appeal has contended that, the acquiring authority issued a notice dated May 17, 2004 to the predecessors in interest of the writ petitioners as they were found to be the persons interested during the course of hearing under Section 9 (3B) of the Act of 1894. The writ petitioners had filed a representation dated December 19, 2004 to the notice dated May 17, 2004 claiming to be the purchasers of the subject land. Acquiring authority had declared the award on October

11, 2004.

5. Learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants in the first appeal has contended that, the writ petitioners filed a writ petition being WP No. 3719 (W) of 2005 challenging the notice dated May 17, 2004. Appellants in the first appeal were not made parties in such a writ petition. Such writ petition had been disposed of on February 1, 2010 holding that the notice dated May 17, 2004 cannot be said to be a notice under Section 9 (3B) of the Act of 1894 and that, the land were not acquired in accordance with law.

6. Learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants in the first appeal has submitted that, the judgement and order dated February 1, 2010 was challenged both by the appellants in the first appeal as well as the State separately. In such appeals, by a judgement and order dated January 3, 2013, the judgement and order dated February 1, 2010 of the learned Single Judge had been set aside. The writ petitioners had preferred a Special Leave Petition directed against the judgement and order dated January 3, 2013 which was disposed of on December 16, 2014 by granting liberty to the writ petitioners to move the authority in terms of the liberty granted by the High Court by its order dated January 3, 2013. 7. Learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants in