IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

28 21.3.2025 Sc Ct. no.2 WPA 16325 OF 2017 ------ --------

Amitava Das Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Amitava Das …. Petitioner appears in person Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay Mr. Srinath Singha Roy.

…. For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3, 7 & 8 Mr. Satyajit Talukdar Mr. Arindom Chatterjee.

…. For the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6/KMDA The petitioner appears in person.

Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Government Advocate with Mr. Srinath Singha Roy, learned State advocate appears for the respondent nos.

1 to 3, 7 and 8, the acquiring body.

Mr. Satyajit Talukdar, learned advocate appears for the respondent nos. 4 to 6, KMDA, the requiring body.

The relevant facts are that, acquisition of the subject land is admitted. There is no challenge to that neither was there any challenge contemporaneously. The acquisition process was initiated during the period 1977 till 1978 under two land acquisition cases. The father of the petitioner, Bimal Kumar Das, since deceased, was the actual land loser.

The document at pages 30-31 to the writ petition shows that, an award was declared in favour of the petitioner’s deceased father on October 28, 1987 Showing page 31 to the writ petition the petitioner submits, no amount was quantified and mentioned against the name of the deceased father of the petitioner, who was the actual land loser. The relevant Death Certificate, Annexure-P4 at page 39 to the writ petition shows the father of the petitioner died on May 17, 1998 Showing page 41 to the writ petition the petitioner submits that, on September 15, 2010 the mother of the petitioner requested for an alternative plot.

Subsequently, the petitioner applied before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and a contempt proceeding was followed in connection therewith, when by an order dated September 23, 2016 at page 50 to the writ petition, several cheques were made over to several persons including the petitioner’s father as and by way of payment of compensation. The cheques are available at page 51 to the writ petition, all dated September 22, 2016 Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming that, compensation was to be determined in terms of the provisions laid down under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 In the above facts, it appears to this Court that, the acquisition process took place under Act II of 1948. The award was declared in 1987, when the law presumes, that the acquisition process stood concluded. The original land loser being the deceased father of the petitioner was alive then and died on May 17, 1998. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate, prima facie, from the records disclosed in this proceeding that, steps were taken by the deceased father during his lifetime to challenge the award, who was the preliminary claimant being alive at the time of declaration of the award and the acquisition proceeding.

In any event, the acquisition proceeding stood concluded in 1987, therefore, the question of application of 2013 Act did not and could not and/or does not and cannot arise.

At this juncture, the petitioner appearing in person has prayed for an adjournment so that, some time can be granted to him to make further submissions.

As the petitioner is appearing in person, for the ends of justice, an accommodation is granted to the petitioner.

The writ petition shall appear under the heading “For Orders” on April 11, 2025 (Aniruddha Roy, J.)