ASHARANI MAITY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land of the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of construction of Highway. The Highway has since been constructed and a proposal was mooted at the end of the Government for relinquishing part of the acquired land to the Original Owners since been unutilised and found surplus. But ultimately, the Government did not restore the land. Several writ petitions were filed. Various orders were passed. Mr. Banerjee learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out from Annexure 'I' at page 49 that there was a proposal for thaking steps in terms of the order passed by this Court and opinion was expressed that the land should be relinquished. This letter was issued on 10th July, 2000. Subsequently, pursuant to order dated 4th April, 2001 passed in writ Petition No. 3533(W) 2001, which was moved by the petitioner once again, the authority had considered the petitioner's case and had passed an order on 30th May, 2001 which is Annexure 'M' to this petition. It is this order which is since been challenged in this writ petition. The other writ petition which finds mention in Annexure 'I' is WP No. 15965 (W)/98.

(2.) Mr. Banerjee learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's land cannot be handed over to the Contai Municipality. The land is also not required for the purpose of extension of the Highway. It is admittedly a surplus land. Further, it appears from the said order dated 30th May, 2000 that a revised relinquishment proposal was sought for. Even, if the said land is not included in the earlier proposal for relinquishment still then there is every possibility or likelyhood of the said land being included in the revised proposal. He further, contended that since the land is no more required for the public purpose for which it was acquired it cannot be handed over to the Contai Municipality. It should be restored to the petitioner. Hence the land needs to be protected. Therefore, no construction should be allowed to be made on the said land. The land should be relinquished in favour of the petitioner forthwith.

(3.) Mr. Bose, learned Counsel for the Contai Municipality on the other hand contended that Municipality is making construction strictly on the land allotted by the Government as has been demarcated in the plan produced which is taken on record. He pointed out that the petitioner's land plot No. 356 has not been included in the land allotted to the Contai Municipality as shown in the said plan. He, further, contended that no construction is being made at the stretch of the Highway or on the land demarcated for the construction of the Highway. It is only the land on which there is no proposal for extension of the Highway construction is being made. Whether the petitioner's land is included within the relinquishment proposal or not, is immaterial so tar as the municipality is concerned. He is concerned only with the land allotted to the Municipality over which there should not be any injunction against construction unless it is an encroach of Highway.