Form No. J (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas M.A.T. 1248 of 2024 Orissa Metallurgical Industry Private Limited vs.

Santanu Santra & ors.

with M.A.T. 1483 of 2017 The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Vs.

Santanu Santra With M.A.T. 1249 of 2024 Orissa Metallurgical Industry Private Limited vs.

Gopa Rani Santra & ors.

with M.A.T. 1485 of 2017 The State of West Bengal, Service through Secy, Dept of Land & Land Revenue & Ors.

Vs.

Gopa Rani Santra with M.A.T. 1250 of 2024 Orissa Metallurgical Industry Private Limited vs.

Nirmal Kumar Santra & ors.

with M.A.T. 1484 of 2017 The State of West Bengal, service through its Secy, Dept of Land &

Land Revenue & Ors.

Vs.

Nirmal Kumar Santra For the Appellants in MAT 1248/2024 MAT 1249/2024 &

MAT 1250/2024 : Mr. Saptangshu Basu, Senior Advocate Mr. Debrup Bhattacharjee, Advocate Mr. R. N. Ghose, Advocate Ms. Pritha Ghose, Advocate Ms. Tonoya Ghose, Advocate For the State in MAT 1483/2017 MAT 1485/2017 &

MAT 1484/2017 : Mr. Rabindra Narayan Dutta, Advocate Mr. Hare Krishna Halder, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Rabindranath Mahato, Advocate Mr. Aritra Shankar Ray, Advocate For the Registrar of Cooperative Society in MAT 1248 of 2024 : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ankit Sureka, Advocate Mr. Biplab Das, Advocate Mr. Partha Sarathi Pal, Advocate Heard on : 19.06.2025 & 1.07.2025 Judgment on : 01.07.2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Six appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as the issues raised are same and/or similar.

2. All appeals revolve around acquisition proceedings undertaken for the purpose of setting up Telecon Industrial Unit.

3. Three sets of writ petitions were filed before the learned Single Judge which resulted in the present six appeals under consideration.

4. MAT 1248 of 2024 is at the behest of the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings while MAT 1483 of 2017 is at the behest of the State of West Bengal and its functionaries. Both are directed against the order dated January 24, 2017 passed in W.P. 21821 (W) of 2016.

5. MAT 1249 of 2024 is at the behest of the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings while MAT 1485 of 2017 is at the behest of the State and its functionaries and directed against the order dated January 24, 2017 passed in W.P. 21816 (W) of 2016.

6. Similarly, MAT 1250 of 2024 is at the behest of the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings while MAT 1484 of 2017 is at the behest of the State and its functionaries and directed against the order dated January

24, 2017 passed in W.P. 21810 (W) of 2016.

7. Beneficiaries of the acquisition proceedings were not parties to the three sets of writ petitions. Claiming to be aggrieved by the orders passed in three sets of writ petitions they sought leave to appeal which was granted. Delay in making and filing the appeals were condoned.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal refers to the impugned order and submits that, learned Single Judge, after holding that possession of the plots was taken by the State and that, award was made, erred in directing invocation of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He relies upon (2020) 8 Supreme Court Cases 129 [Indore Development Authority (Lapse-5) versus Manoharlal and others] submits that, since, the tests laid down in such decisions stand satisfied. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the acquisition proceedings cannot be held to be lapsed. Learned Single Judge erred in directing invocation of the Act of 2013.

9. Learned advocate appearing for the State relies upon a list of dates as also the pleadings in the writ petition and submits that, the present writ petition is a second challenge to the acquisition proceedings. The first challenge of the acquisition proceedings at the behest of the writ petitioners where they challenged the legality, validity and suff