Gopa Chakraborty (Ganguly) & Ors. vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.

By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day''s list and

taken up for consideration along with the application for stay.

The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order rendered by the

learned Single Judge on 25th April, 2017 in WP 22643 (W) of 2016 ( Gopa

Chakraborty (Ganguly) & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors .)

The appellants before us were the writ petitioners.

The main grievance of the writ petitioners before the writ Court was

non-payment of compensation of the land acquired and for demarcation of the

remaining portion of the land-in-question and other ancillary reliefs.

Learned Single Judge, after considering the respective contentions of the

parties, observed as follows:-

"With the above background facts I would like to consider the report submitted by the respondent no.3 in the form of an affidavit. It

appears from the said report that only .06 decimals of land appertaining to plot no. 3792, 3803 and 3804 of Mouza - Kasba was acquired by issuing Notification dated July 10, 1965 as published in the Gazette on September 2, 1965. It further appears from the said report that the award of Rs.1263.21 was assessed, but the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners refused to accept the award. The document annexed to the said report (Annexure ''R-2'') indicates that there were many co- sharers of the three plots and many of the co-sharers have received the award amount by making endorsement and signature on the said document. It further appears from the said report that the predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners Monindra Lal Ganguly filed reference case no.521 of 1967-1977 as he was not satisfied with the amount of award. The present petitioners are not aware of the said reference case and the present petitioners are also not aware that the entire area of three plots bearing no.3792, 3803 and 3804 was not acquired under the land acquisition proceeding of 1973-74. Since the petitioners have failed to establish that the respondents are liable by not making payment of award and since the petitioners have failed to establish that they are the owners of the entire area of the three plots in question which were acquired in connection with the land acquisition proceeding in question, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief in this writ application.

Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed."

Even a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order reflects

cogent reasonings supplied by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the

writ petition.

In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, no interference is usually

warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed. No such

palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed even from a plain reading of the

impugned judgment and order, relevant portion whereof has been quoted

hereinabove.

As such, we do not find any cause for interference. The appeal and the

application for stay are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.

Dismissal of the appeal shall, however, cause no prejudice to the rights

of the appellant in respect of the Reference Case no.521 that has been referred

to and taken note of by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment

and order.