High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 06 CAL CK 0149

Soma Mondal vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 16 June 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
HARISH TANDON, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition 6783 (W) of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

25 paragraphs · 535 words

The petitioner filed an earlier writ-petition being WP 26634 (W) of 2015 raising a grievance that though the acquisition of the property had been made

yet no compensation has been paid nor he is aware of any determination of the compensation by the Collector. At the time of taking up the said writ-

petition, it was submitted on behalf of the State that the award was made and published and the compensation has been determined but the petitioner

did not collect the same.

The petitioner says that there was no notice given to him regarding the computation of the compensation and raises an objection over the quantum to

compensation determined by the Collector. The court disposed of the said writ-petition on December 7, 2015 permitting the petitioner to accept the

compensation and further liberty was given to make a reference in accordance with law for enhancement of the quantum offered by the State. The

petitioner thereafter made an application under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is annexed to the writ-petition at page 44.

The grievance of the petitioner in this regard is that the said application has not been attended by the competent authority and the reference has not

been made for determination of the enhanced compensation. However, a plea has been taken by the respondent that such application has not been

made within six weeks from the date of publication of the award and, therefore, the authority is not under compulsion to decide the said application.

I am not impressed with the aforesaid submission for the simple reason that the period of six weeks can only be applied under Section 18 Clause (a) of

the said Act “if the person making it, was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from

the date of the Collector’s award.â€​

It was all along the stand of the petitioner that he was not intimated about the acquisition proceeding nor an opportunity was given to place his case

before the Collector when the matter was under process for determination of compensation. Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the

said Act provides that such application can be made within six months from the date of the Collector’s award provided a notice is received from

the Collector under Section 12(2) of the said Act.

The said respondent is unable to produce any document that such notice was ever given.

Be that as it may, it is open to the Land Acquisition Collector, Burdwan, to consider all such aspects, if addressed before him and decide the same by

giving proper reasons. It is not expected that such authority would keep such application in abeyance eternally unless the court reminds them of their

solemn duty entrusted upon them by the statute.

This court, therefore, directs the Land Acquisition Collector, Burdwan to take up the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

and dispose of the same within four weeks from the date of communication of this order by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in

accordance with law. With these observations, the writ-petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.