AMRIT DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Grievance of the petitioners is that though they are owners by purchase of a piece of land which was acquired long way back in 2004, they were not paid any compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent no. 2 herein. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners are owners of plot nos. 53/220 and 53/222 appertaining to Khatian No. 278/22 of Mouza - Dubgram within P.S.-Bhaktinagar, Jalpaiguri by virtue of a deed of purchase executed and registered on 18/6/2004. The said two plots were acquired by the Collector and District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri in LA proceeding no. 18/03-04. The petitioners came to know about such acquisition on receipt of the notice no. 1282/LA dtd. 22/8/2006 under Sec. 9 Sub-Ss. 3 and 4 of the LA Act, 1894. After receipt of such notice the petitioners made a representation on 6/7/2007 stating, inter alia, that they are the lawful owners of the said land by purchase but after purchase the land was not mutated in their names. It is also alleged that the petitioners were not paid compensation in respect of being the owners of the said lands. Subsequently on 24/8/2015 the petitioners received a notice issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, Jalpaiguri to take part in the hearing regarding payment of compensation on 28/8/2015. The petitioners duly appeared in the hearing. However, the result of the hearing was not communicated to the petitioners. In the meantime, the petitioners came to know on 15/7/2015 that no payment was made in favour of the petitioners and full payment of compensation has been made in favour of 42 awardees. Therefore, petitioners cannot be treated as awardees in the opinion of the said Land Acquisition Officer.

(2.) Subsequently, the petitioners made series of representations but the respondents did not pay any heed to such representation. By a letter dtd. 24/12/2020 written by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent no. 2 herein that Deed No. 4002 of 2004 was registered in the office of the District Registrar, Jalpaiguri and no subsequent transfer was made in respect of the disputed plots of land. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to get compensation and by filing the instant writ petition they have prayed for a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to consider their case for payment of compensation and to treat them as awardees.

(3.) The State respondent has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition. However, Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent no. 3, Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority (SJDA). Learned Advocate for the petitioners draws my attention to page no. 5 of the said affidavit-in-opposition where SJDA stated on oath that the said two plots measuring about 3.66 acres were acquired by the Collector, Jalpaiguri and award was declared and disposed in the name of 42 awardees where the names of the petitioners were not found in the list of awardees. They failed to establish their ownership over the plots in question before the Collector, Jalpaiguri. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that during the hearing of acquisition procedure, no notice was served upon the petitioners. Therefore, they did not get any opportunity to place their case before the Collector.