Milan Kumar Bhuti and others vs State of West Bengal and others

Supratim Bhattacharya, J

The present appeal arises out of the dismissal of a writ petition filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 25.07.2022 passed in the writ petition being WPA 18523 of 2019.

According to the appellants/petitioners there might have been notice of requisition issued for acquisition of land measuring 2.57 acres of land in the District of Malda, P.S. Gazole, Mouja Rangavita, JL No. 84, RS Khatian No. 77, LR Khatian No. 30, CS and RS Dag No. 16, LR. Dag No. 36 but ultimately the said land has not been acquired and no award has been granted to their mother who was then the owner of the said land.

As such there has not been any vesting of the said land.

On the contrary, according to the respondent/State the said land in question has vested in favour of the State and award has been paid and has been received by the then owner of the land namely Kanaklata Dasi.

The initiation of the present lis has taken place on the issuance of a letter dated 31.10.2018 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (LR) & District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Malda addressed to the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer Gazole, Malda directing to record the name of the Irrigation and Waterways Department, Government of West Bengal.

The learned counsel representing the appellants during his exhaustive submission has stated the following:

i) No notice under Section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 1948 Act) was ever served and possession was not taken over.

ii) He has further submitted that no question of granting award arises. He has also submitted that a proceeding under Section 7 of the 1948 Act has lapsed since 31.03.1997 because of non-granting an award of compensation by the Collector.

iii) He has further submitted that in the Record of Rights their mother’s name appeared till recently.

iv) The learned counsel has stressed upon the point that the authorities tried to evict the petitioners as a consequence of which the writ petition was filed.

v) He has also submitted that acquisition of land under Section 4 (1a) of the 1948 Act has not been complied and there has not been any publication of notice in the official gazette stating that the land in question is required for public purpose.

vi) The learned counsel has further submitted that on behalf of the State, there has been bare denial of the contents placed forth on behalf of the appellants/petitioners and apart from bare denial there has not been any specific and cogent ground mentioned.

vii) The learned counsel has further submitted that Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been complied. The learned counsel has stressed upon the point that during the month of July, 2019 when the appellants/petitioners searched the record in respect of the said land it appeared that the land has been recorded in the name of Irrigation and Waterways Department as Raiyat and thereafter having found the same, the petitioners approached the concerned department and enquired, wherein it was revealed that the Additional District Magistrate (LR) & District Land & Land Reforms Officer (Malda) had sent a letter to the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Gazole (Malda) dated 31.10.2018 directing to record the said land in the name of the Irrigation and Waterways Department, Government of West Bengal, since the said land was acquired in connection with L.A. Case No. 28/1976-77 and having received the said direction the Block land & Land Reforms Officer recorded the name of the Irrigation and Waterways Department in place of their mother’s name namely Kanaklata Dasi.

viii) The learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case between Sandip Kumar Bhakat and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in 1992(2) CLJ 267 and has relied upon Paragraph 50 of the said judgment while emphasizing on the issue of service of notice personally or otherwise on the petitioner under Section 3 (1) of the 1948 Act.

ix) He has also relied upon a full Bench judgement comprising of Hon’ble three Judges of this Court passed in a matter of reference referred to the said Larger Bench, reported in 2011 (3) CHN (CAL) 555 and has emphasized upon Paragraph 23 of the said judgment while stressing upon the issue of lapse in the effectiveness of the notice if award is not passed within a stipulated period. Banking upon the aforesaid submission and authorities the learned counsel has prayed for allowing the present appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent/ State has submitted the following:

i) The learned counsel commenced his submission by stating that the writ petition itself is not maintainable.

ii) He has stressed upon the point that the writ court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delayed filing of the same.

iii) He has submitted that the requisition proceeding was initiated against Kanaklata Dasi, the mother of the petitioners by issuance of a notice under Section 3 (1) of the 1948 Act on 12.08.1976 and has further submitted that the mother of the petitioners expired on 30.04.1992.

iv) He has also submitted that during her lifetime, the said Kanaklata Dasi has not challenged as regards to the process of requisition and acquisition of the said land in question.

v) The learned counsel has further submitted that the procedure relating to requisition and acquisition of land has been complied with and has brought to the notice of the Court the certificate of possession of the land, calculation sheets, payments made to the awardee.

vi) The learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in MAT 1362 of 2022 wherein the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench has taken the view that the contention of the appellants that no award was ever declared is not correct.

vii) The learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court the award passed by the LA Collector and even the personal ledger accounts of Kanaklata Dasi in respect of the LA Case No. 28/1976-77 wherefrom it is revealing that money has been paid to Kanaklata Dasi on 24.08.1984 in respect of the said case. The learned counsel has also placed an order of possession dated 07.08.1976.

viii) He has further placed a certificate of possession of land made over to the parties on whose behalf it has been acquired dated 21.08.1976. Banking upon the aforesaid facts and circumstances the learned counsel has submitted that the appellants/petitioners are not entitled to have the relief/reliefs which they have sought for.

On the basis of the submission of the learned Counsels representing the parties it transpires that the crux of the lis is as to whether the land in question has been acquired or not. If at all acquired, whether the acquisition of the land has been made complying due procedure of law and whether award has been granted to the owner or not.

Decision with reasons

Considering the elaborate submission of the learned counsels and on perusal of the documents placed on record it transpires that the requisition in respect of the said land in question was initiated on 07.08.1976 by an order passed by the ADM, Malda and signed on 12.08.1976 and on 21.08.1976 a certificate of possession of land made over to the parties on whose behalf it has been acquired was issued. It also transpires that a Land Acquisition Case No. 28/76-77 had been initiated. Through the said certificate Section 3(1) of the 1948 Act was complied. The calculation sheets reveal that calculation in respect of granting award was made and the personal ledger accounts reveal that Kanaklata Dasi received the awarded amount on 24.08.1984 being identified by one Ranjit Kumar Ghosh, learned Advocate and the personal ledger accounts are in respect of Case No. 28/76-77 wherefrom it transpires that Rs. 33013.45/- and Rs. 3171.90/- have been paid to her. The Record of Rights produced on behalf of the appellants/petitioners reveal the name of Ramnarayan Das as the husband of Kanaklata Dasi. From the certificate of death issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death Englishbazar Municipality, Malda and the legal heir certificate dated 18.05.2018 issued by the Chariman, Englishbazar Municipality, Malda it reveals that the husband of Kanaklata Dasi was Ramnarayan Bhuti and not Ramnarayan Das. This Record of Rights produced on behalf of the appellants does not favour the appellants. Cash Book General also reveals that two cheques were issued to the awardee in LA Case No. 28/76-77. From the documents mentioned above it transpires that notice under Section 3 of the 1948 Act has been issued and there has been compliance as regards to requisition and acquisition of land and compensation has been received by the owner of the land. This brings to an end as regards to the dispute in respect of the requisition and acquisition of land in question. This also gives afinality to the acquisition of the land and the question of lapsing of the notice of requisition does not arise. The judgments cited on behalf of the appellants does not come in aid to the appellants. The judgment of the Hon’ble Larger Bench passed in has been delivered in a situation where no award was passed but in this present lis award has been accepted by the owner of the land. The other judgment cited on behalf of the appellants in the case between Sandip Kumar Bhakat (supra) deals with the service of notice under Section 3(1) of the 1948 Act. In the present lis it is fact that the land owner has accepted the award and received the same on 24.08.1984 and she had been alive till 30.04.1992 and during her lifetime she did not raise any challenge as regards to requisition and acquisition or receipt of awarded money. In the present lis the constituted attorney namely Gouranga Das who has filed the writ petition was not even born during the LA proceedings and from the affidavit it transpires that he has taken birth during the year 1986 that is after the receipt of the amount of compensation by the owner of the land.

In addition to the above, this Court is also of the same view as that of the Hon’ble Single Judge that the present lis has been instituted at a belated stage.

In such circumstance this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The said impugned order is affirmed.

Thereby the instant appeal being No. FMA 656 of 2023 stands dismissed and accordingly CAN 5 of 2024 is disposed of.

Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of the server copy of the judgment and order placed on the official website of the Court.

Urgent certified photo copies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.