District: JALPAIGURI

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional writ jurisdiction

Appellate side.

In the matter of:

W.P. No. 14096 (w) of 2016

And

In the matter of:

An application under article 226 of the

constitution of India;

And

In the matter of:

An application for issue of writ/writs in

the nature of mandamus;
 And

In the matter of:

An application for issue of writ/writs in

the nature of certiorari and/or any
other appropriate writ/writs, direction
and/or order;

And

In the matter of:

National Highway Act, 1956;

And

In the matter of:

1. Sati Rani Sutradhar, wife of Late

Kartick Sutradhar,

2. Smt. Minoti Ghose, wife of Siboram

Ghose,

3. Pronati Poddar alias Sutradhar, wife

of Bijay Poddar,both daughters of
late Kartick Sutradhar .
4. Sri Animesh Sutradhar , son of Late
kartick Sutradhar , All pf resident of
Mistripara, Debithakurbari, at
village Sripur, Kamarpukur, Post
Office Sripur, District Hooghly,Pin –
712 612.

….. Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of West Bengal,

service through the Secretary,
Land Reforms and Land and
Land Acuisition Department ,
Writers’ Buildings ,Kolkata - 700
001.

2. The Special Land Acquisition

Officer and Competent
authority, Jalpaigurig, under
National Highway’s Act, 1956)
District Magistrate Buildings,
Post Office and District
Jalpaiguri, Pin – 735101.

3. The District Magistrate

Jalpaiguri, Post Office and
District Jalpaiguri, Pin – 734101.

4. The Block Development Officer,

Rajganj Block, Post Office
Rajganj, District Jalpaiguri, Pin -
735101.
5. The Commisioner, Jalpaiguri,
Post Office and District
Jalpaiguri, Pin – 735101.

6. Sri Paresh Chandra Sutradhar ,

son of late mahendra Nath
Sutradhar , Mistripara,
Debithakur Bari, Post Office and
Police Station Rajganj , District
Jalpaiguri , Pin – 735121.

….. Respondents
3.10.2016 W.P. 14096 (W) 2016

(140) Sati Rani Sutradhar and others

(Sg) Vs

The State of West Bengal and others

Mr. Tapash Kr. Bhattacharya,

Mr. Aviroop Bhattacharya

….for the petitioners

Mr. Sushovan Sengupta,

Mr. Subir Pal

…for the State

The petitioner has a grievance that despite application being made,

no compensation has been paid in her favour by the National Highway
Authority after acquisition of the land in question. Admittedly, there is
a dispute with regard to the ownership of the land in question. On
previous occasion the petitioner has moved before this Court in W.P.
35791 (W) of 2013 and by an order dated 24th November , 2014 this
court gave liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before
the appropriate court of law. The petitioner filed a suit but the suit has
been held to be not maintainable. The petitioner also made a prayer
before the special land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority,
Jalpaiguri on 30th June, 2015 (Annexure P5 to the writ petition).
However, the said application has not been taken up for consideration.
 Learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that since there is
a dispute with regard to the title of the plot in question , the competent
authority cannot take a decision but he can refer the matter for the
decision of the competent Civil Court within the meaning of sub-section
4 of section 3H of the National Highway Act, 1956. According, the Land
Acquisition authority, respondent no.2 is directed to refer the dispute
for decision of the principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction within the
limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. Such reference is to be
made within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of
this order.

With the above direction, the writ petition is deposed of.

(Sahidullah Munshi, J.)

District: JALPAIGURI

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional writ jurisdiction

Appellate side.

In the matter of:

W.P. No. 14096 (w) of 2016

And

In the matter of:

Sati Rani Sutradhar and others

….Petitioners

Versus

The State of West Bengal and others

…..Respondents

Subject matter relating to:

Under group – I, Head k,

Of the classification List:

Advocate – on – Record:

Mr. Abhiroop Bhattacharya (Advocate,)

C/O Mr. Tapash Kr. Bhattacharya (Advocate,)

Bar Association, Room No.2,

High Court, Calcutta.

Mobile No. 98301 42426

District: JALPAIGURI

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional writ jurisdiction

Appellate side.

In the matter of:

W.P. No. 14096 (w) of 2016

And

In the matter of:

Sati Rani Sutradhar and others

….Petitioners

Versus

The State of West Bengal and others

…..Respondents

Sl.No. Description of documents Annexure Page No.

1... List of Dates A

2… Point of Law B

3… writ petition. 1 to 24

4… Copy of application. “p - 1”. 25

5… Copy of the application dated 24-9-2013. “p - 2”. 26

6… Copy of the application dated 27-9-2013 “p - 3”. 27 - 28

7… Copy of the order dated 24-11-2014. “p - 4”. 29 - 34

8… Copy of the representation dated 30-6-2015 “p - 5”. 35 – 43

 LIST OF DATES

…… Petitioner inherited the land after death of their

Predecessor, Kartick Sutradhar.

Para …. The respondent authority initiated Land Acquisition proceeding

Being L.A. case no. 3/2011 – 12 for acquiring their lands for the

Purpose of expansion of Notational Highway …… Land of the

Petitioners were acquired in L.A. proceeding.

Para ….. The respondent no.2 issued notice under section 3G of the National Highways

Act in connection with L.A. case 3/11 – 12 for determination of compensation.

The petitioners could not appear before the authority concerned and could

Not submit their objection in time but the private respondent their another

Co sharer appeared and claimed the absolute ownership of the subject land.

Para …… petitioner submitted objection to the respondent before declaration of award.

……Annexure P/2

The respondent did not give reply and did not take step for passing the award

Upon notice to the petitioners.

Points of Law:

1. Whether the respondent authorities are duty bound to refer the matter or
Dispute to the Commissioner, Jalpaiguri, being the arbitrator under the
National Highway Act, for taking decision and for deciding the right of the
Petitioners for getting compensation amount for the acquired land?

2. Whether the respondent No.2 is duty bound to hear the petitioners before
Making payment of compensation for the land of the petitioners so acquired
In the land Acquisition proceeding?