04.7.2025 item No.27 asr ct. no. 24 WPA 9104 of 2008 Swapan Biswas & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Chandan Misra Mr. Debabrata Majumder ….For the Petitioner Mr. Satyajit Talukdar Mr. Arindam Chatterjee ….. for the KMDA Mr. Soumitra Bandhopahdya Mr. Priyabrata Batacharyee ….For the State Present petitioners are the legal heirs of original petitioner, now deceased, Sudhir Ranjan Biswas. The brief fact of the writ petition is that Sudhir Ranjan Biswas is the original owner of plot no.3701, Mouza – Kasba measuring 5 cottah which he purchased vide registered deed no. 1185 dated 19.02.1959. It is the further contention of the petitioners that for the purpose of construction of residential house, said Sudhir Ranjan Biswas applied for house building loan and the said loan was sanctioned. Building plan was sanctioned by the then Union Board, his name was mutated in the Record of Right. Petitioner was 2 possessing the land by giving tax to the Municipal Authority and his name was mutated in the role. Suddenly Sudhir Ranjan Biswas received a notice of requisition being LA case No. II/2 of 1977-78. The said notice is annexed with a notice under Sub- Section (1) of Section 3 of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is in possession of the said stretch of land till today. The land was never acquired by the requiring body. Possession was not taken over by any of the Government Authority. It is further contention of the petitioner as his land was not acquired by requiring body, the same may be released. It is further contention of the petitioner that his land was not acquired/possession and was not received any of the authority. He filed an application with the concerned authority for release of his land. On such request the Executive Engineer, is Calcutta Project revision no. 1 issued a memo upon the petitioner dated 11.12.1981 asking him to appear on his office on 24th December, 1981. It is further case of the petitioner that the concerned authority hear the petitioner and assures 3 that if his land was not acquired for the purpose of acquisition, the same would be released. The petitioner submits that thereafter vide letter dated 30th April, 2007 as well as 6th November, 2007 the KMDA authority informed the petitioner that the KMDA has decided to allot a plot of land measuring approximately 4.06 cottah at plot no. 4 comprising R.S. Dag no. 3701in Mouza-Kasba for residential purposes only. It has been also instructed by the KMDA that such plot of land would be allotted on condition that compensation money awarded by the collector, South 24 Parganas has to be deposited to KMDA. Petitioner being aggrieved by the said letter approached this court and challenged the issuance of such notice by the KMDA. The petitioner also challenged the proceeding being LA case no. II/2 of 1977-78 being illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as the land never used by any of the authority thus the land is required to be released. The proceeding of L.A case which resulted to the acquisition of the said land has never been acted upon; It is only a documentary acquisition, no possession has been 4 take over thus the impugned proceeding is being L.A case no. 2 of 1977-78 is required to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development authority submits that R.S. plot 3701 of Mouza-Kasba, District- South 24 Parganas measuring about 1.57 accore in total was fully acquired in two phases. First in the year 1977-78 and secondly in the year 1991-92. The concerned L.A Collector, South 24 Parganas has completed the acquisition proceeding for the public purpose i.e. for East Calcutta Area Development Project. He further submits that in the first phase out of total area 1.57 acre of land, an area measuring 1.337 acre was acquired vide L.A case no. LA II/2 of 1997- 98. He submits that for the same purpose the notice under Section 4(1a) of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition Act), 1948 was duly published in the official gazette on December 8, 1983 and the possession of the land was handed over by the concerned Collector to the concerned officer of KMDA authority (requiring body) on 17.09.1979. In the second phase remaining portion of 0.233 acre of R.S. 5 plot no. 3701 of Mouza-Kasba was acquired in connection with L.A. case no. being no. II/24 of 1991- 92 for public purpose. Notice under Section 4(1a) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1984 was published in the Calcutta Gazette on September 11, 1995. Possession of the said land was handed over by the concerned Collector to the KMDA authority on 31.03.1994. He further submits that the notice of requisition was initially published. Thereafter, the land was acquired by issuance of notice under Section 4 (1a) of the said Act 2 of 1948. He submits that after such issuance of notice under Section 4 (1a) of the said Act II of 1948, the land under such acquisition vested to the State free from all encumbrances. He further submits that the concerned collector has already made an award in respect of the said acquired land and award amounting to Rs. 3,20,912.32 paisa was deposited in the name of Sudhir Ranjan Biswas, ( original petitioner) through the Special L.A. Judge on 2nd January, 2001 vide 6 cheque no. 645703 dated 28.11.2000. He submits that the State has successfully acquired the land according to law and the same was handed over under the possession of KMDA. The petitioner cannot challenge the entire L.A. proceeding at this juncture. So, he prayed for setting aside the dismissal of the instant writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner has challenged two notices issued by the KMDA, wherein they offered the petitioner a plot of land measuring about 4.06 cottah at plot 4 in Mouza- Kasba. On condition that the compensation money awarded by the collector, South 24 Parganas has to be deposited to KMDA. On query it appears that there are no such notification or guideline of the concerned authority which KMDA to ask the petitioner for depositing the money which he received by way of compensation. Moreover, law does not permit any authority to ask for the compensation money from a land looser for the purpose of giving a free hold land. Furthermore, it he appears to the authority that at the time of acquisition 7 some structure of the petitioner are required to be demolished also and if it appear to the authority that the said person/land-looser are required to be given a plot of land on land on humanitarian ground and they may offer the same to the land-looser but not in lieu of payment of compensation money. Thus the notice impugned dated July 30, 2007 and November, 2007 issued by the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority appears to me not on the basis of any notification or authority of law thus the same are hereby set aside and quashed instead, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the KMDA for allotment of such land which they already offered in lieu of money, which to be assessed by the concerned authority at the rate when the land was actually acquired. The petitioner is at liberty to file a representation to the authority to that effect; being respondent no. 5 of this writ petition, shall dispose of the representation according to law within 6 weeks from the date of receiving of the representation after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In respect of the prayer of the petitioner regarding quashing impugned proceeding being L.A II of 1977-78, it appears that the concerned authority 8 has already completed the procedure of acquisition. For the sake of argument if he appears that the petitioner is in possession over the land the same is an emcumbrances upon the State. It is admitted that by virtue of issuance of notification under Section 4 (1a) of the Act II of 1948 the land acquired by the State was vested to the state free from all encumbrances. Possession of the petitioner over the acquired land is a status of illegal possession which has already been declared by the Hon’ble Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority –Vs.- Mandhar & Ors. that the same possession cannot be taken into consideration. In the above observation I find no justification in the prayer of the petitioner to quash the L.A. proceeding. Under the above observation the instant writ petition is disposed of. ( Subhendu Samanta, J.)