SANTOSH KUMAR BHUINYA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contention of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioner, Smt. Padmavati Bhuinya acquired right, title and interest in respect of Plot No. 1121 in Mouza:- Kalikakhali, District:- Purba Medinipur by virtue of a deed of gift executed in her favour by one Shyama Charan Bhuinya on 19th July, 1950 and after demise of Padmavati Bhuinya on 24/09/1979 the petitioner being her sole heir and legal representative, inherited the said property and has been in possession of the same since then.

(2.) By a letter dated 1st December, 2017 the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur confirmed that the plot in question being no. 1121 was not acquired by the State. The petitioner was not aware that a portion of the said plot was illegally encroached upon by the State authorities and the existing Nandakumar-Digha road constructed thereon. On or about 25/03/2018 the respondent authorities once again started filling up the land illegally for which a writ petition being W.P. No. 4630 (W) of 2018 was filed by the petitioner. By an order dated 3rd September, 2018, a coordinate Bench of this Court directed the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation before the respondents ventilating his grievances which was to be considered by the respondents within four weeks from receipt thereof. Upon non compliance of the said order, a notice of contempt was issued on 29th November, 2018 following which the petitioner was informed that the respondents would try to complete the process of land acquisition at the earliest. Notification issued by the respondents on 19th May, 2019 indicated that Plot No. 1121 was not acquired and proposal for acquiring the same was initiated. The representation submitted by the petitioner was dismissed by the concerned authority upon recording mere presence of the petitioner at the hearing though the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing by the authority.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted written notes of argument in addition to oral argument canvassed by him wherein it is stated that the gazette notification dated 11th August, 1949 does not include the disputed plot. The State respondents have initially stated vide letter dated 1st December, 2017 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Tamluk that the disputed plot was not acquired. Subsequently, by a letter dated 18th December, 2018 issued by the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division No. II it was indicated that the disputed plot was missed out from the bulk land acquisition proposal and process to acquire the same was initiated by the department. The said fact is reiterated by the Chief Engineer, National Highway Wing in his letter dated 16th May, 2019.