1 In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen WPA 26927 of 2015 With CAN 1 of 2023 Shefali Ghosh & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Petitioners : Mr. Gazi Faruque Hossain Mr. Rakib Hossain Khan For the State : Ms. Moumita Dhar Heard on and Judgment on : 16-09-2026 Partha Sarathi Sen, J.:- 1. The writ petitioners and the respondent State are represented by their respective learned advocates. 2. Affidavit of service as filed today on behalf of the writ petitioners is taken on record. 3. Ms. Dhar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent State submits before this Court that she needs some time to file report in the form of affidavit. 2 4. On perusal of the instant writ petition, it appears that on behalf of the respondent State an affidavit-in-opposition is filed against that affidavit-in-reply is also filed by the writ petitioners. 5. In view of such, this Court finds hardly any scope to file a report in the form of affidavit, as prayed for on behalf of the respondent State and, thus, such prayer is considered and rejected. 6. This Court has heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioners. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State prays for an accommodation. Prayer for accommodation is considered and rejected. 7. The instant writ petition is taken up for passing appropriate order. 8. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has impugned the assessment and fixation of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,40,813/- on account of acquisition of the writ petitioners’ land, particulars of which, has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the instant writ petition. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that 30 decimals of land in Plot Nos.247 and 246 in Mouza – Mojpur under Police Station – Tarakeswar has been acquired by the Public Health Engineering (in short ‘PHE’), however, the said PHE authority being the requiring body and/or the respondent State being the acquiring body failed and neglected to pay the just compensation for such acquisition. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 most whimsically fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.27,655/- and assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,40,813/- which is exceptionally low and the same is required to be interfered with in this writ petition. 3 9. Though Ms. Dhar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State expresses her inability to make her submission in connection with the instant writ petition, however, it appears in the affidavit-in-opposition the respondent State had taken following defence: - A) Pursuant to a consent agreement between the PHE and the writ petitioners, 30 decimals of land in Plot Nos.246 and 247 in Mouza - Moipur under Police Station - Tarakeswar was taken by PHE for the purpose of setting up a water supply scheme for the larger public interest. B) In the said consent agreement, the land owners agreed to accept the amount determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. C) The Additional Collector of Hooghly assessed the market value of the 30 decimals of land at the rate of Rs.27,655 as it stood on 21.04.1995. D) The assessed value as referred to above was not acceptable to the writ petitioners and, accordingly, they approached this Court by filing WP No.16565 (W) of 2003 wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing the said writ petition recorded the consent of the writ petitioners regarding assessment of compensation of the acquired land by the Land Acquisition Collector. The compensation to the tune of Rs.27,655/- as referred to above which is, however, not acceptable to the writ petitioners and, accordingly, the said Coordinate Bench permitted the petitioners to deposit the sum of Rs.27,655/- with the respondent authorities with a liberty to the 4 writ petitioners to approach the appropriate forum, in the event, the writ petitioners are aggrieved with the quantum of compensation as has been assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. E) Challenging the said order as passed in WP No.16565 (W) of 2003 an intra-court Appeal MAT 1326 of 2009 was preferred by the writ petitioner Mahadev Ghosh & Ors., which was disposed of on 02.05.2014 by passing the following orders: - “It is agreed by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties after arguing at length that the matter may be remitted to the Collector of the concerned District to re-determine the compensation after hearing the appellant and to consider the evidence as may be adduced by the parties with respect to determination of market value on the basis of principles enunciated under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Obviously, the market value of the land has to be determined as on the date on which the possession had been taken over. In the circumstances, as agreed by the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the impugned order is set aside. Let the Collector of the concerned District hear the parties and determine the compensation afresh in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order after holding such enquiry may be considered necessary. Let fresh order be passed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order". F) Pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in MAT 1326 of 2009, subsequently renumbered as FMA 764 of 2012, the Land Acquisition Collector in consultation with the jurisdictional Additional District Sub-Registrar, Haripal, Hooghly 5 assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,40,813/- vide order dated 12.03.2015. G) The assessment as made by the Land Acquisition Collector has reached its finality because of the fact that the present writ petitioners had accepted the compensation as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector to the tune of Rs.1,40,813/- and, thus, the writ petitioners cannot challenge the same by filing the instant writ petition. H) The respondent authorities, more specifically, the Land Acquisition Collector at this stage cannot initiate any acquisition process afresh since, as per mutual agreement the land of the writ petitioners was utilized by the PHE. 10. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, this Court is satisfied that sufficient materials have been placed on behalf of the respondent State that the land in question as involved in the instant writ petition was never acquired by the respondent State on behalf of the requiring body i.e. PHE. Rather sufficient materials have been placed before this Court that the present writ petitioners have agreed to hand over the said land to the PHE authority for greater public interest. Materials have been placed before this Court that while executing the deed of conveyance, the writ petitioners have also agreed to accept the appropriate compensation from the requiring body. 6 11. It appears to this Court that pursuant to the judgment and order dated 02.05.2014 as passed in FMA 6764 of 2012, the Land Acquisition Collector while determining the due compensation as payable to the writ petitioners took assistance of the Additional District Sub- Registrar, Haripal, Hooghly in order to assess the valuation of the land on the day of handing over the possession of the land on consent to the requiring body by the writ petitioners. It appears that it is the specific case of the respondent State that on the day of handing over the land in question by the writ petitioners, the market value of the contiguous land has been taken into consideration to arrive at a decision with regard to the just and due compensation as payable to the writ petitioners. 12. This Court considers that sitting in a judicial review, this Court cannot interfere with the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector in absence of any material to show that the decision making process of the Land Acquisition Collector has been vitiated for non-consideration of sufficient materials, which are mandatorily be considered by the said Land Acquisition Collector. In course of his argument, learned advocate for the writ petitioners also fails to show any other parameter, which ought to have been considered by the Land Acquisition Collector for assessment of the compensation. 13. This Court is well aware that sitting in a writ jurisdiction, the Court is not supposed to act as an appellate authority and, therefore, in absence of any glaring illegality or perversity this Court is not inclined 7 to interfere with the assessed compensation of the Land Acquisition Collector. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is dismissed. 15. There shall, however, no order as to costs. 16. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.) S.R. [AR(C)]