Prafulla Samanta vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

The writ petition has been filed on false premises. The case of the writ petitioner can be found in paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 7 where he made a specific

allegation that two plots of lands belonging to him and recorded as bastu had been affected by the construction of embankment made by the irrigation

department and the State of West Bengal due to riverine erosion. The specific case was that without duly acquiring his plots of land or any acquisition

proceeding of which notice was given to him the middle portion of his lands including his residential building has been affected. I had directed a report

to be filed by the State of West Bengal being a status report with the physical verification by the authorities of the State of West Bengal by way of a

joint verification. Such order was passed in the presence of the concerned parties.

From the status report dated June 14, 2018 filed by the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, South 24 Parganas and the joint field verification report

being the minutes of the joint field verification it appears that the petitioner was represented at the joint verification by Sri Dilip Samanta and during

such joint physical verification it was clearly found that R.S. plots corresponding to the L. R. plots in the writ petition were not utislised by the

Irrigation Department. There is a categorical report by the Additional Land Acquisition Officer in the status report that the suit plots are not entered in

the land acquisition register and the State of West Bengal Land Acquisition Department never utilised or acquired the said lands.

The writ petition was affirmed by one Pratul Samanta on behalf of the writ petitioner. He is alleged to be the son of the writ petitioner. Paragraph

Nos. 6 and 7 relating to acquisition of the land and utilisation without notice to the writ petition have been affirmed as submissions in the affidavit. Had

there truly been such an allegation without notice the writ petitioner and/or his son would have taken responsibility for it as being true to their

knowledge. Clearly, therefore, by cleverly drafting a false case has been brought before this Court in order to claim compensation from the State of

West Bengal as appears from prayer ‘a’ to the writ petition.

In support of this nefarious motive, the writ petitioner has also sought that an application made by him under Section 18 of act 1 of 1894 be considered

and disposed of by the concerned respondents. When his lands in question have not been acquired, naturally no award was declared in his favour, and

so the question of his being aggrieved by way of not accepting it and seeking enhancement of the award would not come. This application under

Section 18 is at page ‘36’ of the writ petition. It is a document typed in English; signed in Bengali allegedly by the writ petitioner. It is not

mentioned in the said document that this was read over and explained to Prafulla Samanta in a language which he understood. The said Prafulla

Samanta has of course not come forward to affirm the affidavit accompanying the writ petition.

While it is not my place to speculate about the nexus between the unscrupulous land mafia and certain sections of advocates of this Court I record the

above so that in future such case are looked upon with a little more than usual scrutiny. I, therefore, find on facts (which have not been disputed and in

fact, could not be since the writ petitioner was represented at joint inspection and there is no endorsement of his refusal to sign or any

contemporaneous document produced in writing), that the writ petition is an abuse of process of this Court and a deliberate attempt to wrongfully use

the mechanism of Article 226 of the Constitution to not only obtain compensation on false premises but come to the writ Court with a completely false

case.

Mr. Gouranga Kumar Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner today since his learned counsel Mr. Sabir Ahmed has been continuously

absenting himself after the status report was filed, submits that in reality some other land of the writ petitioner had been acquired and not these lands.

He wanted to file a supplementary affidavit to explain the position. Since the writ petition itself on facts has been found to be false, I do not wish to

give this indulgence to his client.

For all the above reasons I have recorded, the writ petition is dismissed in the circumstances with exemplary costs of Rs.5,000/to be paid to the State

of West Bengal. This order shall not prevent the writ petitioner if truly his other lands have been acquired without due process of law to approach the

appropriate forum for relief.