Dd 72 05.05.2025 ML MAT/2401/2023 THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. VS NITYANANDA MONDAL AND ORS. Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Mr. Tanay Chakraborty, Advocates … … For the Appellants Mr. Biswarup Biswas, Mr. Gora Chand Samanta, Advocate … … For the Petitionesr/respondents. 1. Appeal is at the behest of the State and directed against an order dated August 8, 2017 passed in WPA 23332(W) of 2015. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the plots which the private respondents/writ petitioners claim ownership are described in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. He draws the attention of the Court to the notices issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and submits that, none of the plots claimed to be owned by the writ petitioners are described in the notifications or included therein, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894. Consequently, he submits that, the directions contained in the impugned order requiring the appellant to pay compensation to the private respondents/writ petitioners for acquisition does not arise since, there was no proceedings for acquiring any land belonging to the private respondents. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that, on inquiry, the District 2 Magistrate submitted a report which stated that, acquisition proceedings stood lapsed and, therefore, private respondents are entitled to compensation. 4. We perused the materials on record. 5. Private respondents/writ petitioners claimed ownership of 12 plots of land described in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. There are notices placed on record issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on July 29, 2010 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 published on December 2, 2010. None of those two documents contain any of the plots narrated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. 6. The plots over which the private respondents/writ petitioners claim ownership were never part of the acquisition proceedings in LA 4/4 2010-2011. 7. Writ Court required a report from the District Magistrate and Collector, South 24 Parganas which was submitted. Such report of the District Magistrate and Collector, South 24 Parganas speaks of lapse on LA case No. 4/4 2010-2011. 8. The LA case may or may not stand lapsed as claimed by the District Magistrate and Collector South 24 Parganas in his report. However, the fact remains that, the plot of land over which the private respondents/writ petitioners claim ownership never formed part and parcel of the acquisition proceeding in LA Case No.4/4 of 2010-2011. Therefore, there is no ground for issuance of any directions for granting compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 or otherwise. 9. In view of the discussions above, order dated August 8, 2017 passed in WP 23332(W) of 2015 is set aside. 3 10. MAT/2401/2023 is allowed without any order as to costs. (Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)