IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen WPA 3419 of 2025 Nanney Khan & Anr.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

With WPA 4469 of 2025 Md. Faisal Hussain Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the petitioner in WPA : Mr. Rwitendra Banerjee 3419 of 2025 & private Mr. Shibasis Chatterjee respondent no. 16 in WPA Mr. Sandip Kundu

4469 of 2025 For the petitioner in WPA : Mr. Sarwar Jahan

4469 of 2025 Mr. Gourav Das Mr. Amit Bikram Mahato Mr. Aditya Bikram Mahata For the State in WPA 3419 : Mr. Ayan Banerjee of 2025 Mr. Amrita Lal Chatterjee For the State in WPA 4469 : Mr. Soumitra Bandapadhyay of 2025 Mr. Ram Chandra Gucchait For the respondent nos. 10 : Mr. Dinabandhu Chowdhury & 11 in WPA 3419 of 2025 Mr. Aritra Bhattacharya & respondent no. 11 in Mr. Shivam Debnath PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:

1. This Court has heard the learned advocates for the contending parties at length in support of and against the instant two writ petitions.

2. The instant writ petitions are now taken up for passing appropriate order.

3. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention herein that since in the instant two writ petitions the order no. 4 dated 27.11.2024 as passed by the Additional District Magistrate (LA) & Competent Authority of Land Acquisition Officer, CALA, Purulia the respondent no. 4 herein is under challenge and in view of the fact that as the identical questions of facts and laws are involved in the instant writ petitions, this Court proposes to dispose of the instant two writ petitions by this common judgment.

4. By filing the instant two writ petitions, the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate and/or writs against the respondent authorities more specifically against the respondent no. 4 for quashing and/or setting aside the order dated 27.11.2024 as passed by the respondent no. 4 whereby and whereunder the said respondent no. 4 authority has made an order of apportionment of compensation in respect of plot no. 786 in Mouza Belguma, J. L. No. -41 in connection with L.A. Case no. 21 of 2015/NH-32 under NH32 project work in accordance with provisions of Section 3H (3) & (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said “Act of 1956”)

5. In course of his submission, Mr. Rwitendra Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners in WPA 3419 of 2025 and the private respondent no. 16 in WPA 4469 of 2025 at the very outset draws the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 3G, 3H and 3I of the said Act of 1956. At this juncture Mr. Banerjee, took me to the copy of the order no. 4 dated 27.11.2024 as has been annexed at page 81 and 82 in WPA

3419 of 2025. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee that on perusal of the said order under challenge it would reveal that the respondent no. 4 authority had practically acted as a Civil Court while discharging his obligation under Section 3H (3) of the said Act of

1956.

6. It is also submitted by Mr. Banerjee that under Section 3I of the said Act of 1956, the power of the competent authority to act like a Civil Court is very much limited inasmuch as, the said Section 3I clearly specifies the peripheries within which the said competent authority can act as a Civil Court.

7. It is further submitted by Mr. Banerjee that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that Section 3H(3) & (4) of the said Act of 1956 empowers the competent authority who is the respondent no. 4 herein, to determine the dispute which is essentially within the domain of principal civil court of original jurisdiction.

8. In course of his submission, Mr. Banerjee also draws attention of this Court to page nos. 50 to 54 of the instant writ petition (WPA 3419 of 2025) being a copy of certified copy of the judgment as passed in a suit for partition being Partition Suit no. 129 of 1962, which was decreed in preliminary form by the jurisdictional subordinate Judge.

9. Attention of this Court is also d