KRISHNENDU SAHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Krishnendu Saha and Phani Bhusan Saha, since deceased were joint owners in respect of Dag No. 276 appertaining to khatian No. 99/1 and 293/1 in mouza-Tarulia, JL No. 21 recorded as Sali (Agricultural) land measuring about 34 decimals under Rajarhat Police Station in the district of North 24 Parganas. Be it mentioned that during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the petitioner No. 2 Phani Bhusan Saha expired and his legal heirs and successors, namely, Gopal Saha and Jayanta Saha have been substituted as petitioners No. 2A and 2B in the instant writ petition. It is stated by the petitioners that the aforesaid land in question was in use and occupation and possession of the petitioners since they became the owners of the said land. The petitioners paid all rents and taxes to the State of West Bengal till 1416 BS. It is further stated by the petitioners that by a purported notification No. 281/LA-4/167 of 98-99/NTP dtd. 11/1/1999 under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the respondent No. 3 required the said land for public purpose, for establishment of New Town-Rajarhat Township. The petitioners have alleged that the said notice under Sec. 4(1) of the Act 1 of 1894 was never served upon them and they collected the said notice under Right to Information Act on 11/6/2010 from the officer of the LA Collector, North 24 Parganas. Further case of the petitioners is that the petitioners along with other villagers/farmers made an agitation against the impugned notification in respect of requisition and acquisition of land of Patharghata Tarulia Mouza in the name of Rajarhat-New Town project by the State authorities adopting oppressive measures. The agitation of the petitioners and other local people was suppressed by the State authorities by lodging FIR against them on the basis of which Rajarhat Police Station Case No. 195 dtd. 11/6/2004 under Ss. 148/149/341/323/427/506/397 of the IPC was registered. Subsequently, police submitted charge-sheet against a large number of people of Patharghata and Tarulia Mouza which gave rise to GR Case No. 111/04 which is still pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat. Therefore, the petitioners were not in a position to make any objection under Sec. 5(A) of the Act 1 of 1894. It is also alleged that the petitioners were never served with any notice of acquisition of land under Sec. 9(2) of the said Act. The respondent authorities did not follow statutory provision for service of notice. Petitioners being the persons interested in respect of the land in question which was illegally acquired by the State of West Bengal, particularly the Collector, North 24 Parganas, the respondent No. 3 herein, were also not in a position to file a claim for compensation in respect of the land acquired illegally for public purpose. Though, the petitioners used to reside at the relevant point of time in Mouza Tarulia, no notice under Sec. 9(2) of the said Act was issued to the petitioners. They were not allowed to participate in the process of passing award of compensation for the land acquired illegally under Sec. 11 of the said Act. The petitioners were not served with any copy of the award sheet under Sec. 11 of the said Act. Various provisions of Sec. 4, Sec. 11, Sec. 12 and Sec. 23 were not followed by the respondent.

(2.) On the above pleadings the petitioners has prayed for following reliefs:-

(3.) Respondents No. 3 and 4 and respondent No. 5 have filed affidavit-in-opposition against the above mentioned writ petition. In their affidavit-in-opposition they specifically denied the case of the petitioners. It is the specific case of the respondents No. 3 and 4 that the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in Housing Department issued a notice dtd. 10/11/1998 for acquisition of 152.06 acres of land in Mouza Tarulia for setting up of a new satellite town ship under Act 1 of 1894 to the Collector, North 24 Parganas requesting him to initiate LA proceedings for acquisition of the said 152.06 acres of land. The said notice was appended with a letter of the Executive Engineer-II, Planning Division, Housing Directorate dtd. 2/11/1998 wherein it is stated, "Hon'ble MIC Housing has expressed his desire for quit acquisition of these areas for Rajarhat-New Town Project." It is also pleaded on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and 4 producing a copy of gazette notification dtd. 5/4/1999 that the disputed land along with other lands in Mouza Tarulia were acquired in exercise of the powers conferred by subSec. (4) of Sec. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the provisions of Sec. 5A of the said Act were not made applicable to the lands in question in view of the provisions contained in Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 17 of the said Act.