SARBESWAR JANA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners, stated to be the owners of the plots of land in question, have challenged the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") on the following grounds :-

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that on 29th May, 2009 the State had in daily newspaper issued a notification under section 4 of the Act for acquisition of the plot of land in question to construct a bridge at Ramnagar over Ramnagar Khal on Contai-Digha Road, at Ramnagar, Purba Medinipur, for public purpose and it was further notified that any person having interest in the said land and who had any objection to the said acquisition, may within thirty days file their objections in writing before the Collector. The petitioners objected in writing and gave alternative proposal. However, as there was no response, an application dated 10th March, 2010 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('2005 Act' for short) was filed before the appropriate authority. By memo dated 12th April, 2010 the authority under the 2005 Act replied that all objections from land owners had been forwarded to the Land and Land Reforms Department and thereafter Declaration under section 6 of the Act was published. Thereafter, it appears, on 16 June, 2010 notifications under Section 12(2) of the Act were issued. Allegation is, thereafter the petitioners were coerced by the State to accept cheques and tokens for which on 22nd June, 2010 they lodged complaint before the Officer In- charge, Ramnagar Police Station.

(3.) MR . Banerjee, learned Government Pleader, opposing the writ petition submitted that the contention on behalf of the petitioners that the provisions contained in Section 5A of the Act were not followed is incorrect as it is not disputed that written objections were considered, hearing was granted to the objectors and as evident from the order dated 15th July, 2009 opinion was formed, recommendation was made and report was filed. According to him as there is no prescribed method in Section 5A, and as composite order dated 15th July, 2009 has taken care of the statutory requirements contained in the said section, action taken is valid and in accordance with law. Moreover, as the petitioners did not challenge the proceedings promptly either after order dated 15th July, 2009 was passed by the Collector or after Declaration was published on 16th February, 2010, and had subsequently participated in the proceedings under Section 12(2) of the Act recording their attendance, and thus acquiesced, and thereafter had filed the writ petition without challenging order dated 15th July, 2009 and the Declaration, the writ petition may be dismissed on the ground of delay.