S/L 6 16.01.2025 Court. No. 551 Suvayan WPA 24696 of 2012 Balaram Maity & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Ramdulal Manna Mrs. Manju Manna Mr. Sayan Mukherjee …for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjit Ghosh Ms. Sanchita Barman …for the U.O.I. Mr. Jayanta Samanta Ms. Supriya Majumder …for the State. 1. The affidavit-of-service as filed today is taken on record. 2. By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioners has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or writs against the respondent authorities for recalling and/or setting aside their decision for payment of compensation in favour of the private respondent No. 8. 3. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the present two writ petitioners and the private respondent No. 8 are the full blooded brothers and they jointly own and possess 0.62 acres of land in R.S. Plot No. 6899 corresponding to L.R. Plot No. 10981 in R.S. Khatian No. 2935 in Mouza – Kismat Bajkul, J.L. No. 156, P.S. – Bhupatinagar, District – Purba Medinipur. 4. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that for the purpose of construction of a Broad Gauge Link Line 2 from Deshpran Station to Nandigram Station an acquisition process for 0.072 acres of land in the said plot of land was started and the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, i.e., the Union of India and its functionaries made publication of notice. Thereafter the said respondent authorities, i.e., the Union of India and its functionaries made an enquiry with regard to the ownership and possession of the acquired land and most unilaterally handed over the compensation amount to the private respondent No. 8 without considering the objections as raised by the petitioners on 12.10. 2012 a copy which has been annexed at page Nos. 22 to 25 of the instant writ petition being Annexure – P2. 5. In course of his argument Mr. Manna, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submits before this Court that under Section 20H of the Railway Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act of 1989) the competent authority, i.e., the respondent No. 6 is duty bound to refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated and in not doing so the writ petitioners’ valuable right to get compensation has been miserably affected for which interference of this Court is very much necessary and accordingly Mr. Manna request this Court to allow the instant writ petition by issuing appropriate writ or writs as prayed for. 3 6. Per contra, Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, i.e., Union of India and its functionaries at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the annexures to the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by his client. It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh that from the said annexures it would reveal that there was no illegality and irregularity in the said acquisition proceeding. It is contended by Mr. Ghosh that prior to acquiring the land in question the necessary notification under Section 20A of the said Act of 1989 was published. It is further contended by Mr. Ghosh that from the record of right as maintained by BL&LRO, i.e., the respondent No. 7 it reveals that the acquired plot of land stood in the name of the private respondent No. 8 and thus there is no illegality and/or irregularity on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in disbursing the compensation amount in favour of the private respondent No. 8. 7. It is further argued by Mr. Ghosh that being a writ court this Court cannot decide the title of the writ petitioners and private respondent No. 8 and thus the writ petition is liable to dismissed since the writ petitioners have not availed the alternative efficacious remedy before the common law forum. 8. In course of his submission learned Advocate for the respondent/State submits before this Court that the compensation amount has already been disbursed to the private respondent No. 8. 4 9. It is pertinent to mention herein that despite service, the private respondent No. 8 does not appear. 10. For effective adjudication of the instant lis the provision of Section 20H of the said Act of 1989 is required to be looked into and the same is quoted hereinbelow in verbatim: “20H. Deposit and payment of amount.-(1) The amount determined under section 20F shall be deposited by the Central Government, in such manner as may be prescribed by that Government, with the competent authority before taking possession of the land. (2) As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto. (3) Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub- section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them. (4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or may part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. (5) Where the amount determined under section 20F by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the arbitrator may award interest 5 at nine per cent per annum on such excess amount from the date of taking possession under section 20-I till the date of actual deposit thereof. (6) Where the amount determined by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the excess amount together with interest, if any, awarded under sub-section (5) shall be deposited by the Central Government, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Government, with the competent authority and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (4) shall apply to such deposit.” 11. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legislative provision if I look to the factual aspects of this case it appears to this Court that it is the specific case of the writ petitioners that in the aforementioned plot of land they are jointly possessing 0.62 acres of land. From page Nos. 22 to 25 of the instant writ petition it reveals that the present two writ petitioners on 12.10.2012 submitted written objection to the respondent authorities raising objection to the respondent Nos. 1 to 6’s decisions disburse compensation to the respondent No. 8. However, from page No. 19 of the affidavit-in-opposition as filed before this Court it would reveals that on 08.04.2013 the competent authority, Deshapran- Nandigram New B.G. Line wrote a letter to their learned Advocate stating inter alia that before the competent authority at the time of hearing the present two writ petitioners had agreed for disbursement of the entire 6 compensation to their younger brother who is the private respondent No. 8 herein. 12. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court it appears that admittedly their lies a dispute with regard to the apportionment of the compensation for the aforementioned acquisition of land in the aforementioned plot since the writ petitioners alleged that they have been deprived of their proportionate share of compensation though they were jointly possessing and owning the said plot of land while it is the case of the railway authority that at the time of hearing both the writ petitioners have consented for disbursement of compensation in favour of the private respondent No. 8. 13. 13. In view of such, in considered view of this Court there lies a dispute within the meaning of Section 28 (4) of the said Act of 1989. 14. Accordingly, while disposing the instant writ petition this Court directs the respondent No. 5 and in case of his non-availability the respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction, District – Purba Medinipur positively within a month from the date of communication of this order. 15. It is further directed that the respondent No. 5 and in his absence the respondent No. 2 while referring the said dispute to the said Court shall intimate in writing with regard to such reference both to the petitioners as 7 well as to the private respondent No. 8 in writing and such notice are to be send by speed post. 16. It is made clear that while disposing the instant writ petition this Court has made no observation with regard to the title of the writ petitioners and the private respondent No. 8 in respect of the plot of land which has been acquired and thus the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction, District – Purba Medinipur is directed not to persuade himself with any of the observation as made hereinabove while making the adjudication. 17. With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition being WPA 24696 of 2012 is hereby disposed of. 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.)