Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rajabala Mondal vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 January, 2025
F.J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN
W.P.A. NO. 17786 OF 1998
WITH
CAN 1 OF 2001 (OLD NO.CAN 10215 OF 2001)
RAJABALA MONDAL
-vs.-
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
FOR THE PETITIONER : Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya,
Mr. S.P. Pahari,
Mr. A. Pradhan,
Mr. T.K. Mahapatra
FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO. 2 : Mr. Alok Banerjee,
Mr. Ashok Kumar Jena
FOR THE STATE : Mr. Swapan Kumar Pal
HEARD ON : 20.01.2025.
JUDGMENT ON : 20.01.2025
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. :
1. In this writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of
appropriate writ or writs against the respondent State, more specifically
against the respondent no.5 authority for quashing and/or rescinding the
2
acquisition proceeding in respect of plot of lands, particulars of which has
been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the instant writ petition.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that it is an admitted
position that by virtue of a land acquisition proceeding as initiated in the
year 1962, 26.62 acres of land was acquired by the respondent no.5
authority which was thereafter handed over to the respondent no.2
authority for construction of Haldia Dock. Drawing attention to page
nos.12, 13 and 14, being the copy of the judgment as passed in G.R. Case
No.396 of 1998 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldia, Purba
Medinipur, as has been annexed with the written notes of argument, it is
contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner has been
falsely implicated in a criminal proceeding under Sections 466/468/471
IPC wherefrom he was, however, acquitted by the said court of Judicial
Magistrate on 03.01.2019.
3. In course of his argument, learned advocate for the writ petitioner further
draws attention of this Court from page nos.16 to 17 of the writ petition
being copies of two unregistered licenses in the name of the original writ
petitioner as executed in the year 1945 in respect of certain portions of the
subject plots. It is argued that by virtue of the said two licenses, the writ
petitioner came into possession over certain portions of the plots which
are subject matter of the instant writ petition.
4. In his next fold of submission, learned advocate for the writ petitioner
draws attention of this Court to the copies of RS RoR dated 29.08.1996
3
which has been annexed with the instant writ petition at page nos.20 and
21. Attention of this Court is also drawn to an enquiry report dated
05.06.2018 as submitted by the Jurisdictional Revenue Inspector in
connection with a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. It is submitted on
behalf of the writ petitioner that from the said RS RoR of the year 1996
and the report of 2018, it would reveal that the writ petitioner is still in
possession of the aforementioned properties, particulars of which has been
mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. Drawing further attention
of this Court to page no.26 of the written notes of argument, it is
submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that from the affidavit-in-
opposition as filed by the respondent State, it would reveal that it is the
case of the respondent State that they have disbursed compensation to one
Sadananda Sardar, Sayanda Sardar and Tararani Sardar, who according to
the writ petitioner were not the recorded owner of the alleged acquired
plots of land and thus, the said persons are not entitled to any
compensation as prayed for.
5. It is submitted further that since the alleged acquisition proceeding of
1962 under the Act-I of 1894 was concluded without disbursing payment
of compensation to the rightful owner of the said acquired land that is the
writ petitioner herein, the entire acquisition proceeding may be treated as
vitiated and therefore, an appropriate writ may be issued against the
respondent State, more specifically against the respondent no.5 for
quantification of the compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation
4
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act of 2013’).
6. Per contra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State
at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the order dated
16.03.2021 and the order dated 31.03.2023 as passed in the instant writ
petition by two separate coordinate Benches of this Court.
7. It reveals that by an order dated 16.03.2021, the writ petitioner was
directed to adduce documents demonstrating that the writ petitioner was
the owner of the land which is the subject matter of the instant writ
petition and by the subsequent order dated 31.03.2023, a report was called
for from the Special Land Acquisition Collector as to whether any land in
excess of the area acquired by the Gazette notification of 1963 was taken
possession by the State or not.
8. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent State that pursuant to the order
dated 16.03.2021 no new documents have been filed by the writ petitioner
to substantiate his ownership with regard to the acquired land as directed
by this Court. It is further submitted that pursuant to the order dated
31.03.2023, a report was filed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector
which clearly shows that no excess land was acquired by the State
pursuant to the relevant notification of 1962.
9. Drawing attention to the additional affidavit-in-opposition dated
21.01.2020, it is further submitted on behalf of the respondent State that
from the paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the said affidavit-in-opposition dated
5
21.01.2020 it would reveal that in the said paragraphs the particulars of
the plot number, acquired area, nature of the land, name of the persons
who are found to be the recorded owners of the same and names of the
awardees have been clearly described. It is, thus, submitted on behalf of
the respondent State that since at the time of acquisition the name of the
original writ petitioner, that is, Gajendranath Sardar was not found
available, the question of disbursement of compensation in favour of the
writ petitioner did not arise. Learned advocate for the respondent State
thus submits that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed
for.
10. While adopting the argument of the learned advocate for the respondent
State, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 being
the requiring body draws attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-
opposition as affirmed on 30.03.1999. It is submitted that on conjoint
perusal of paragraph 9(a) and copy of the relevant notification as available
at page 15 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, being Annexure-A it would
reveal that entire plot of CS plot nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 were acquired
and the same was handed over to the respondent no.2 authority. It is thus
submitted that in absence of any cogent document of title and/or
possession in respect of the self-same acquired property prior to the
acquisition proceeding, the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief as
6
prayed for. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent no.2
authority that on account of non-explanation or inordinate delay and
laches, the writ petitioner is also not entitled to any relief. It is further
submitted that the writ petitioner for ventilating his grievance could have
approached appropriate court to establish his title and possession and,
thus, on account of availability of the alternative remedy, the instant writ
petition is not maintainable.
11. Learned advocate for the respondent no.2 also places reliance to the report
as submitted by the respondent no.5 authority pursuant to the order of the
coordinate Bench on 31.03.2023.
12. This Court has meticulously gone through the entire materials as placed
before this Court. This Court has given its due consideration over the
submission of the learned advocates for the contending parties.
13. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this
Court, it reveals that by notification dated 22.08.1962, CS plot nos.1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46,
47, 48 and 49 in full were acquired by the respondent State. Documents
have been placed before this Court that immediately after the acquisition
the said plots of land in full have been handed over to the respondent no.2.
From the report of the respondent no.5 it appears to this Court that the
details of the plots of land including the plot number, acquired area,
classification of the land, name of the owner of the said plots of land and
7
particulars of the awardees have been disclosed. Admittedly, in the said
report the name of the original writ petitioner, Gajendranath Sardar is not
transpiring. It is the specific case of the respondent State that at the time
of acquisition proceeding the said original writ petitioner, Gajendranath
Sardar, since deceased’s name was not recorded in the relevant CS RoR. As
discussed supra, a coordinate Bench practically granted a liberty to the
petitioner by passing an order dated 16.03.2021 to adduce document to
substantiate his title and possession over the acquired plots of land prior
to the acquisition.
14. This Court has meticulously gone through the photocopy of the deed of
licence as has been annexed at page nos.16 and 17 of the writ petition and
it appears that the said deed of licence was granted on 28.04.1945. The
writ petitioner claims title and possession in respect of plot nos.3, 21, 11,
13, 24, 25, 4, 8, 5, 2 and 6 on the basis of the said two licenses.
15. It has been claimed on behalf of the writ petitioner that on the basis of the
said two deeds of licence the original writ petitioner’s name was duly
recorded in the RS RoR dated 29.08.1996.
16. It appears to this Court that a deed of licence is not a document of title and
it is also settled that under the provisions of the Registration Act 1908, a
registered deed of conveyance in respect of an immovable property having
value of more than Rs.100/- is to be conveyed only by a registered
document. Since a deed of possession cannot be considered as a deed of
title this Court considers that the writ petitioner has miserably failed to
8
discharge his obligation to prove his title over the plots of land which are
the subject matter of notification of acquisition of the year 1962.
17. Admittedly, in the affidavit-in-opposition the writ petitioner has relied
upon some RS RoR but those are of the year 1996. Keeping in mind that
RS RoR is only a document of possession and not of title and also keeping
in mind that a presumption upon a record of right is a rebuttable
presumption, this Court further finds that the writ petitioner in the instant
writ petition has failed to demonstrate his title and possession over any
portions of the plots which are the subject matter of the aforementioned
notification. As rightly noticed by a coordinate Bench of this Court that
after acquisition, rights and title of the land owners over the acquired land
stood extinguished. It thus appears before this Court that the writ
petitioner has miserably failed to demonstrate that he has either title or
possession over any portion of the land which was acquired in the year
1962.
18. As rightly argued by the learned advocate for the respondent no.2 that
because of the long delay the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief
since no explanation has been offered on behalf of the writ petitioner as to
what prompted him to file the writ petition in the month of September
1998, whereas the acquisition proceeding was started in the year 1962.
19. At this juncture, this Court intends to place its reliance upon a reported
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, namely, Banda Development
Authority, Banda versus Motilal Agarwal and Others reported in
9
(2011) 5 SCC 394, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court exercised the
following view:
“17. It is true that no limitation has been prescribed for
filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but
one of the several rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by
the superior courts is that the High Court will not entertain
petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may
adversely affect the settled/crystallised rights of the parties.
If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation
prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High
Court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to
entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merit.”
20. It appears to this Court that the proposition of law as enshrined in the case
of Banda Development Authority (supra) is squarely applicable in the
case in hand. For the sake of argument, even if, it is accepted that the writ
petitioner is/was the owner of the subject plot of lands prior to the
acquisition proceeding, this court finds no plausible explanation of the
writ petitioner as to why he made so much delay in approaching this court
for granting relief by exercising plenary jurisdiction of the Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court has also noticed that
pursuant to the said acquisition proceeding, the possession of the land was
given to the respondent no.2 authority on 31.07.1963 and in the meantime,
a valuable right has also been accrued in favour of the respondent no.2,
10
may be even in favour of some third party at the instance of the
respondent no.2.
21. In view of such, this Court considers that the writ petitioner is not entitled
to any relief also on the ground of delay and laches.
22. This Court thus holds that the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit
and is hereby dismissed. The application being CAN 1 of 2001 (Old No.
CAN 10215 of 2001) is also dismissed.
23. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
24. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the
parties on priority basis.
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link