ORDER
SHEET WP No.3003 of 2000 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PUNALUR PAPER MILLS LTD.Versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 9th February, 2016.
Mr.Shakti Nath Mukherjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Shyamal Sarkar, Sr.Adv.Mr.Deepak Jain, Adv.…for the petitioners Mr.Sadananda Ganguli, Ld.
AGP Mr.S.N.Biswas, Adv.…for L.A.Collector, Kolkata Mr.Ashoke Kr.
Banerjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Sanjay Saha, Adv.…for WBMDTC LTD.The Court : A supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the State pursuant to leave granted.
Mr.Mukherjee, learned senior Advocate made his submissions upon discovery of the materials disclosed in the said affidavit.
He submitted the challenge of the petitioner was two folds.
Firstly, the resort of the State to its powers under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 citing urgency and taking possession of the premises in question on 20th September, 2000 was bad as there was no urgency.
The possession of the property ought to have been restored to the petitioner two years prior to that date when the period of requisition had come to an end.
The petitioners had filed a writ petition for obtaining such possession in which there was an order made, on the submissions of the State, to the effect that they require three months to either vacate or take steps for acquisition.
In any event the fact of the matter was, therefore, there could be no urgency when a period of two years had elapsed between the time the period of requisition ended and Section 17 of the said Act resorted to by the State.
Mr.Mukherjee relied on several judgments on this point as mentioned in a list of cases handed up to Court and copy made over to the appearing respondents.
The second point urged by Mr.Mukherjee was that in any event the acquisition proceedings initiated by the State attracted application of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Act, 2013, one way or the other.
According to him, no award had been passed in the acquisition proceeding.
In such a situation, he submitted, Section 24 subsection (1) (a) stood attracted and thereby all provisions of the Act of 2013 relating to determination of compensation have become applicable.
If, on the other hand, the State could demonstrate that an award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 had been made, if it was found that such award had been made five years or more prior to commencement of the Act of 2013 and compensation had not been paid the said proceedings must be deemed to have lapsed by application of Section 24 sub-section (2) of the Act of 2013.
He relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of :(i) Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.
versus Harakchand Misirimal Solanki reported in (2014) 3 SCC183; (ii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association versus State of Tamil Nadu & ORS.reported in (2015) 3 SCC353; and (iii) Rajiv Chowdhrie Huf versus Union of India & ORS.reported in (2015) 3 SCC541 Relying on the above decisions he submitted the position had been made clear by the said Court regarding any submission that might be made for exclusion of time in the matter of award and compensation not paid for the purpose of escaping the rigour of Section 24 sub-section (2) of the Act of 2013.
The Supreme Court had with reference to exclusion of time occasioned by interference of Court in the matter of publication of notification or making of award under Sections 6 and 11A of the old Act brought in by way of amendment in the year 1984, made clear that Parliament had consciously omitted to make such exclusion in the application of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2013.
Mr.Ganguly, learned Advocate, Additional Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the State and prayed for an adjournment to give his reply to the submissions of law made and recorded as above.
Mr.Banerjee, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 made similar prayer.
List this writ petition on 4th March, 2016 marked at 2 P.M.The writ petitions being item Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 of the day’s list are to be listed after this writ petition on the adjourned date.
(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) TR/ ORDER
SHEET WP No.3003 of 2000 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PUNALUR PAPER MILLS LTD.Versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 9th February, 2016.
Mr.Shakti Nath Mukherjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Shyamal Sarkar, Sr.Adv.Mr.Deepak Jain, Adv.…for the petitioners Mr.Sadananda Ganguli, Ld.
AGP Mr.S.N.Biswas, Adv.…for L.A.Collector, Kolkata Mr.Ashoke Kr.
Banerjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Sanjay Saha, Adv.…for WBMDTC LTD.The Court : A supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the State pursuant to leave granted.
Mr.Mukherjee, learned senior Advocate made his submissions upon discovery of the materials disclosed in the said affidavit.
He submitted the challenge of the petitioner was two folds.
Firstly, the resort of the State to its powers under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 citing urgency and taking possession of the premises in question on 20th September, 2000 was bad as there was no urgency.
The possession of the property ought to have been restored to the petitioner two years prior to that date when the period of requisition had come to an end.
The petitioners had filed a writ petition for obtaining such possession in which there was an order made, on the submissions of the State, to the effect that they require three months to either vacate or take steps for acquisition.
In any event the fact of the matter was, therefore, there could be no urgency when a period of two years had elapsed between the time the period of requisition ended and Section 17 of the said Act resorted to by the State.
Mr.Mukherjee relied on several judgments on this point as mentioned in a list of cases handed up to Court and copy made over to the appearing respondents.
The second point urged by Mr.Mukherjee was that in any event the acquisition proceedings initiated by the State attracted application of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Act, 2013, one way or the other.
According to him, no award had been passed in the acquisition proceeding.
In such a situation, he submitted, Section 24 subsection (1) (a) stood attracted and thereby all provisions of the Act of 2013 relating to determination of compensation have become applicable.
If, on the other hand, the State could demonstrate that an award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 had been made, if it was found that such award had been made five years or more prior to commencement of the Act of 2013 and compensation had not been paid the said proceedings must be deemed to have lapsed by application of Section 24 sub-section (2) of the Act of 2013.
He relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of :(i) Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.
versus Harakchand Misirimal Solanki reported in (2014) 3 SCC183; (iv) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association versus State of Tamil Nadu & ORS.reported in (2015) 3 SCC353; and (v) Rajiv Chowdhrie Huf versus Union of India & ORS.reported in (2015) 3 SCC541 Relying on the above decisions he submitted the position had been made clear by the said Court regarding any submission that might be made for exclusion of time in the matter of award and compensation not paid for the purpose of escaping the rigour of Section 24 sub-section (2) of the Act of 2013.
The Supreme Court had with reference to exclusion of time occasioned by interference of Court in the matter of publication of notification or making of award under Sections 6 and 11A of the old Act brought in by way of amendment in the year 1984, made clear that Parliament had consciously omitted to make such exclusion in the application of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2013.
Mr.Ganguly, learned Advocate, Additional Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the State and prayed for an adjournment to give his reply to the submissions of law made and recorded as above.
Mr.Banerjee, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 made similar prayer.
List this writ petition on 4th March, 2016 marked at 2 P.M.The writ petitions being item Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 of the day’s list are to be listed after this writ petition on the adjourned date.
(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) TR/