Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer which denied compensation to petitioner, a single-judge bench comprising of Suvra Ghosh,* J., held that the petitioners have right to compensation due to the lapse of proceedings and land utilisation. The Court directed the State to initiate proceedings and pay compensation within three months.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition challenging the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) dated 02-05-2023 rejecting the petitioner’s claim. The petitioners claimed rights, title, interest, and possession over plots of land, part of which, land measuring 9.62 acres, was acquired by the State for the construction of National Highway-2 through Asansol town. Subsequent acquisition cases were initiated, leading to the forcible takeover of land portion of 84.19 acres without compensation. Numerous writ petitions seeking compensation were filed. By a previous order dated 11-01-2023, the court directed the authorities to reconsider the case, resulting in the impugned order rejecting the petitioners’ claims.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioners argued that their predecessors-in-interest retained rights over the surface land despite sub-soil rights being vested in the State. The petitioners argued their names were recorded post-vesting under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, (1948 Act), suggesting retention rights. Moreover, a notice under the 1948 Act, was served, indicating continued rights despite sub-soil vesting. The petitioners sought compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act).
The respondents contended that the plots, including sub-soil rights, were resumed by the State under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (1953 Act), terminating leases, making the petitioners ineligible for compensation. The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) disclaimed any role in the matter, stating the construction falls outside its jurisdiction.
Moot Point
-
Whether the writ petition maintainable, considering the sub-soil rights were resumed under the 1953 Act, and the vesting order is not challenged?
-
Whether the petitioners have a valid claim for compensation under the 2013 Act, given the contested surface rights issue?
Court’s Assessment
The court addressed the maintainability of the writ petition, noting that sub-soil rights were resumed but relying on the record of rights issued post-vesting, indicating the petitioners’ right to retain the land. The Court rejected the argument challenging maintainability, emphasising on the non-challenge to the vesting order and the petitioners’ reliance on subsequent records.
The Court referred to the prior judgment and emphasised on the need for the petitioners to establish their claims with relevant documents. The Court scrutinized the SLAO’s order, noting reliance on records and lack of findings on the legality of the L.R. record of rights. The Court held that the R.S. record of rights and the notification under the 1948 Act, are sufficient to establish the petitioners’ right, title, and interest in the surface land.
“It is not the case of the respondents that the proceeding under the 1948 Act was concluded within the stipulated time frame. The proceedings having lapsed and the land of the petitioners utilised by construction of the flyover, the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.”
Ruling in favor of the petitioners, the Court, hence, set aside the impugned order and directs the Special Land Acquisition Officer to initiate proceedings under the 2013 Act, granting compensation to the petitioners within three months, affording a reasonable opportunity for all concerned to be heard. The Court deemed the allegations not admitted due to the absence of an affidavit and awarded no costs.
[Aloka Mukherjee v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 966, order dated 02-02-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Suvra Ghosh
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Amit Pan, Mr. Madan Mohan Roy, Counsel for the Petitioner
Ms. Monika Roy, Ms. Shrinjita Ray, Counsel for the NHAI
Mr. Chandi Charan De, Mr. Anirban Sarkar, Counsel for the State
Ms. Tanusri Santra, Counsel for the Proforma Respondent
