Calcutta High Court Dismisses 'Contradictory' Plea Seeking Both Compensation & Possession Of Land Acquired By Govt 52 Yrs Ago

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed as being 'patently illegal', a plea filed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“LARR”) seeking compensation for and restoration of possession of a land acquired 52 years ago.

In dismissing the writ petition, a single-bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf held:

I am amazed that such a frivolous and vexatious petition has been filed, and that too, after a lapse of more than 50 years. The acquisition by the Government is not in dispute. The present petition is nothing but a circuitous method of trying to get unjust enrichment. The petitioner can’t ask compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and then pray for such land to be put under their possession. I am of the view that this petition that has been filed after an inordinate delay of 52 years, is completely baseless and without any merit whatsoever. The prayers itself are contradictory and no relief whatsoever can be sought by the petitioner.

Petitioner's grandfather was the original owner of the land in question. He submitted that in 1962, through a registered deed, his grandfather had sold the said property to one Baidyanath Majhi, who thereafter in 1966, sold the land back to the petitioner’s father, from whom the petitioner inherited it in 1993.

Petitioner argued that in 2013 he found that part of the said property had been recorded in the name of the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority (“ADDA”). It was argued that only 2.41 acres was given to the ADDA and that the balance land was still in his possession, which entitled him to compensation.

Petitioner claimed that no compensation had been given to his father, and accordingly filed the present writ petition for compensation under the LARR, as well as for the “respondent authorities to ensure, protect and safeguard his peaceful enjoyment and possession of the land.”

Upon perusing the petitioner’s prayers, the Court found that they were not only “time barred but also contradictory in nature.”

It was held that the amount of land transferred to the ADDA would be immaterial, since the question would be whether the petitioner and his father lost all their claim over the property when the acquisition took place.

Court found that the record clearly indicated that at the time of acquisition, the petitioner’s grandfather had sold the plot of land to Baidyanath Madhi, thereby relinquishing his rights over the property.

It was further held that a demand for compensation under the LARR and to subsequently ask for “peaceful enjoyment and possession” of the same plot of land would be contradictory in nature, and could not be granted.

In conclusion, the Court noted that it would be “patently illegal” for the petitioners to claim that it was the responsibility of the respondent/State authorities to produce records which were more than 50 years old to show that compensation had been paid to the petitioner’s predecessors.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, but keeping in view the pecuniary conditions of the petitioner, the Court stopped short of imposing costs on the “baseless petition, filed after an inordinate delay of 52 years, without any merit whatsoever.”

Coram: Justice Shekhar B Saraf

Case: Biswajit Mukherjee v The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 263

Click Here To Read/Download Order