STATE Vs. GOPAL KRISHNA DAS ADHIKARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 14946(W) of 2005 (Gopal Krishna Das Adhikary vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) decided on 5th June, 2000.

(2.) We may briefly notice the facts leading to the filing of this appeal. Acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquiring the land of the petitioners under section 27 of the West Bengal Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The acquisition was for the benefit of Haldia Development Authority, the 5th respondent in the writ petition. The Collector after following due procedure made the Award on 10th April, 1997. Possession of the land, was taken by the respondents on 8th May, 1998. It is not disputed that the Collector has paid the amount of compensation to the petitioner in two instalments on May 23, 2005 and July 6, 2005. In all a sum of Rs. 3,22,041/- was paid to the petitioner. This amount, however, did not include any interest. Aggrieved by the action of the Collector in not paying any interest on the compensation, the petitioner filed writ petition being W. P. No. 1628(W) of 2003. This writ petition was, however, disposed of on 17th March, 2003 with a direction to the Collector to examine the question whether the possession of the land had been taken without making payment of the compensation. The petitioner had also initiated contempt proceeding for non- payment of interest. This proceeding was also disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to initiate original proceeding regarding the claim for interest in terms of provisions under section 33 of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition with a direction to the State Government to pay interest to the petitioner in terms of provisions contained in section 33 of the Act within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Hence, the present appeal by rthe State.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error of law in holding that the possession of the land could not be taken without payment of compensation. In support of the submission the learned Counsel has relied on the provisions of section 27 of the Act.