SAMIR PARUA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this instant writ petition is one Samir Parua, who was the owner of Plot No.857, under Mouza Sovarampur, District-Purba Midnapur. For the purpose of establishing an Industrial Complex and the development of the Haldia Project, under the West Bengal Infrastructure and Industrial Development Act, 1974 (hereinafter, 'The Act') the Land Acquisition Collector acquired the land of the petitioner under Haldia L.A. case no. HAD-003/1996-97. After assessment of the plot, via memo No. 1122(236) HAD/VII-M-6/97 dtd. 14/10/1998, the Collector informed the petitioner that he is to receive an amount of Rs.81,325.00 as the market value of the land on 23/10/1998, which he received via a cheque.

(2.) The petitioner alleges that although the respondent authority acquired the homestead land with the dwelling house measuring about 1.5 decimals out of 3.0 decimals land, the authority did not allow any plot of land in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of construction of a new dwelling house. Therefore, being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents for not allotting any alternative accommodation or plot of land for rehabilitation in favour of the petitioner, as he was an evicted person, he moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being W.P. No. 5152(W) of 2006. The Hon'ble Jayanta Kumar Biswas J., as His Lordship was then, by an order dtd. 27/1/2009, disposed of the petition holding that:- "Within three days from the date of communication of this order to the Chairman of the committee, the Chairman shall supply to the petitioner an authenticated legible copy of the decision of the committee dated April 25th, 2005. It is made clear that all reasons in support of the decision, if recorded separately, shall be supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner will at liberty to question the decision of the committee before the appropriate forum by initiating appropriate proceedings. There shall be no order for costs."

(3.) The petitioner served the copy of the order to the respondents on 27/2/2009, but they did not comply with the directions. It was again served to the petitioners on 18/6/2009. On 2/7/2009, the respondent communicated an order along with the relevant portions of the proceedings of the meeting of the Rehabilitation Advisory Committee, Haldia held on 25/4/2005 to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that the respondent ignored and rejected the claim of the petitioner for a separate rehabilitation plot in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner argues that the decision of the Rehabilitation Advisory Committee, Haldia is arbitrary, motivated and purposive as in earlier occasions, the said Advisory Committee allotted plots in favour of the evicted persons in several cases, i.e., in the case of a father and his son. But, through the proceedings dtd. 25/4/2005, the rehabilitation advisory committee rejected the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a separate rehabilitation plot on the plea that a plot has already been recommended in favour of his father Bangshidhari Parua.