Susheela Devi vs Lieutenant Governor And Others

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite previous orders of this Court, including an order dated September 02, 2019 passed by the Division Bench in MA No.28 to 32 of 2019, wherein an admission was recorded on behalf of the Administration that the lands acquired from the appellants therein were not utilized for the purpose and accordingly, the Administration was directed to consider and take a decision whether a notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, for withdrawal of the previous acquisition was to be issued, the land of the present petitioner, which is also situated in the village Garacharma, which was the subject matter in the previous appeal, has not been returned, nor has any notification under section 48 been issued for withdrawal of the acquisition.

It is submitted, by placing reliance on the order dated September 2, 2019, that the admission of the Administration as regards the lands acquired from the appellants not being utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired, pertains not merely to Prothrapur but also to Garacharma, where the petitioner resides.

Learned counsel appearing for the Administration submits that the premise of the petitioner's contention is bad in law, since the petitioner herself is not in occupation of the premises-in-dispute at all. As such, no question of withdrawal of the acquisition and restoration of the acquired land in her favour can be made at this juncture.

Learned counsel for the Administration also seeks liberty to file an affidavit-in-opposition to bring the said fact on record.

However, since allegations and counter allegations have been made and there is a previous Division Bench order, which categorically shows that none of the lands acquired from the villages Garacharma and Prothrapur under the same acquisition proceeding, which covers the present petitioner, the petitioner is at least entitled to a hearing on the question raised by her as to whether she is also governed by the direction passed on September 02, 2019 by the Division Bench of this Court, for a notification under Section 48 to be issued in respect of her land as well, thereby withdrawing the earlier acquisition.

Whatever may be the disputes on facts, the petitioner has a right to be heard on this question by the Administration. As such, there is no necessity of uselessly dragging on the present writ petition by directing affidavits; instead, a proper recourse would be to direct the respondent no.3 to consider the present writ petition as a representation of the writ petitioner and to dispose of the same upon hearing the petitioner. Accordingly, WP No.260 of 2019 is disposed of by directing the respondent no.3 to treat the present writ petition as a representation given by the petitioner and to dispose of the same in accordance with law upon giving hearing to the petitioner.

It is made clear that all allegations made in the present writ petition and the dispute raised by the respondents herein as regards the occupation not being with the petitioner in respect of the disputed land, will be kept open for being decided by the respondent no. 3 while deciding the said representation. The respondent no.3 is directed to decide on such representation within eight weeks from date and to intimate the result of the same to the writ petitioner. Needless to say, the respondent no.3 shall also give prior notice of hearing to the petitioner before arriving at any decision on the representation.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to learned counsel appearing for the respective parties upon compliance of usual formalities.