S/L 60 17.07.2025 Court. No. 19 Sourav WPA 24073 of 2015 Premamoy Chowdhury Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Ms. Sohini Chakraborty Mr. Asis Kr. Das Mr. Suman Chattopadhyay Ms. Faiza Mashoor … for the petitioner. Mr. Chandi Charan De, Ld. AGP Mr. Suman Ghosh, Ld. SGA Mr. Gourav DAs … for the State. Mr. Satyajit Talukdar Mr. Arindam Chatterjee … for K.M.D.A. 1. The affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit-in-reply as filed on behalf of the respondent/KMDA and the writ petitioner respectively are taken on record. 2. On behalf of the respondent/State a report is filed and the same is taken on record. 3. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent nos. 5 and 6/authorities being the instrumentalities of the KMDA to allot and deliver physical possession of a plot of land to the writ petitioner. 4. At the time of hearing, Ms. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset submits before this Court that in lieu of acquisition of land belonging to the writ petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, the said predecessor-in- 2 interest of the writ petitioner was awarded compensation. 5. At this juncture, attention of this Court is drawn to Page Nos. 10, 13 and 14 of the affidavit-in-reply as filed today. It is submitted that from the copies of the documents as have been annexed with the affidavit-in- reply, it would reveal that the KMDA/authority has allotted a plot of land in favour of a co-sharer of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner by executing a registered deed. 6. Ms. Chakraborty at this juncture, requests me to look to the Page No. 29 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of letter dated 03.02.1982, as has been written by the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner to the Deputy Secretary of the KMDA requesting him to allot a plot of land at Baishnabghata, Patuli. It is submitted by Ms. Chakraborty that such application as submitted by the writ petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest was never given due adherence and as of now, no land has been allotted to the writ petitioner. 7. It is further submitted by Ms. Chakraborty that the action of the respondents/authorities, more specifically, the respondent nos. 5 and 6/authorities are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India since, the deprivation of the writ petitioner and/or his predecessor-in-interest by the said respondent nos. 5 and 6/authorities tantamount to violation of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of the India in view of the fact that the said 3 respondents/authorities have made an unreasonable classification amongst the same class of persons. 8. Drawing attention to paragraph no. 7 of the affidavit- in-opposition as filed by the KMDA/authority, it is further submitted by Ms. Chakraborty that in such affidavit-in-opposition, the KMDA/authority has not specifically denied the allotment of land in favour of a co-sharer of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner. 9. It is thus submitted that it is a fit case for allowing the instant writ petition in terms of the prayers made in the instant writ petition. 10. Per contra, Mr. Talukdar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the KMDA/authority strongly contended that the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner has already obtained due compensation for the acquisition of his land. It is further submitted by Mr. Talukdar that no case has been made out by the writ petitioner for allotment of any land by the KMDA/authority in absence of any Rule. 11. Mr. De, learned AGP, appearing on behalf of the respondent/State adopts the argument of Mr. Talukdar, learned advocate for the KMDA/authority. 12. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent/State that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, it appears to this Court that the writ petitioner has miserably failed to 4 place any material to substantiate that the KMDA/authority is under any legal obligation to allot a plot of land either in favour of the predecessor-in- interest of the writ petitioner or in favour of the present writ petitioner on account of acquisition of a plot of land for which compensation has been disbursed to the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner. 14. 14. Though Ms. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner strongly contended that in lieu of acquisition of land one of the co-sharers of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner was allotted a plot of land, however, such argument as advanced by Ms. Chakraborty appears to be not convincing inasmuch as from the recital of the relevant deed of lease as has been annexed at Page nos. 14 to 21, it nowhere transpires that the said land was allotted to the lessee of the said registered deed in lieu of acquisition of his/her land. 15. This Court thus, considers that the writ petitioner has miserably failed to make out a case for obtaining the reliefs as prayed for. 16. With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition being WPA 24073 of 2015 is dismissed with all connected pending interlocutory applications, if therebe any. 17. Interim order, if therebe any, stands hereby vacated. 5 18. 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.)