Sl No. 41 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present: The Hon’ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi And The Hon’ble Justice Gaurang Kanth. MAT 89 of 2024 CAN 2 of 2024 Padma Das and Ors. -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Appellant : Mr. Saktipada Jana, Adv. Mr. D Kundu, Adv. For the respondents/ Writ petitioners : Mr. Hirak Barman, Adv. Heard on : 27.01.2025 Judgment on : 27.01.2025 Joymalya Bagchi, J. :- 1. Appellants have assailed judgment and order dated 1.3.2023 whereby Hon’ble Single judge dismissed their prayer to aside the district magistrate’s direction dated 23rd May 2023 pursuant to order dated 1.3.2023 in WPA 189 of 2023. 2 2. Factual matrix giving rise to the appeal is as follows : Appellants claim to be legal heirs of raiyat in respect of LR Dag nos. 5404, 5411 and 5412 in LR Khatian no. 128 Mouza Andaran Fulbari, PS Tufanganj, District Cooch Behar. They contend that the aforesaid plots in question were illegally acquired and utilized for construction of irrigation bandh and village road by North Bengal Development Department (in short NBDD) without payment of compensation. Accordingly, appellants approached this court in WPA 189 of 2023 inter alia praying for compensation for utilization of 16 satak of the aforesaid plots for construction of irrigation dam under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013). 3. Hon’ble Singe judge by order dated 1.3.2023 directed the district magistrate and Collector to verify the grievance of the appellants and come to a finding whether the private land of the appellants were utilised for construction of irrigation bandh by NBDD without payment of compensation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and NBDD. 4. Pursuant thereto distinct magistrate by the impugned decision inter alia held that irrigation bandh had not been constructed on the appellants’ plots but had been constructed on other plots. 5. Mr. Jana contends appellants were not given adequate opportunity to present his case before the district magistrate as no notice of field enquiry 3 undertaken by BL&LRO Tufanganj-I had been served upon them. The order is silent so far as LR plot no. 5405 Khatian no. 128 is concerned. 6. Per contra Mr. Hirak Barman and Mr. Sumit Kumar contend none of the aforesaid plots were utilized for construction of the irrigation bandh. LR plot nos. 5411 and 5412 in khatian no. 128 was submerged due to change of course of river and not for construction purpose. The plots utilized for construct of bandh also does not include LR plot no. 5405 in LR khatian 128 but others including plot no. 5405 in LR khatian no. 121. 7. We have perused the impugned decision of the district magistrate in light of the submissions at the bar. 8. First issue raised by Mr. Jana is that the appellants were not given notice in respect of field enquiry undertaken by BL&LRO concerned. Accordingly, they were unable to effectively present their case before the magistrate. 9. We find little substance in the submission. Field enquiry report submitted before the district magistrate clearly indicates that irrigation bandh by NBDD was built on plot nos. 5404, 5405, 5406, 5409 5413, 5417 and 5418 of Mouza Andaran Fulbari corresponding to LR khatian nos. 121, 6094, 7092, 30506, 128, 121, 7324, 1921 1415, 4115 and khatian no 1. 10. During hearing the appellants did not raise any objection to the said report nor did they place any document to controvert the aforesaid finding. 4 Their claim relates to LR plot nos. 5405, 5411 and 5412 in LR Khatian no. 128. None of these plots had been utilized for building the irrigation bandh. 11. In such view of the matter we are of the view appellants had adequate opportunity to controvert the field inquiry report and make out a case that their plots had been illegally utilized for bandh construction but singularly failed to do so. 12. The other issue raised by Mr. Jana also unmerited. He argues LR plot nos. 5411 and 5412 was submerged due to change of course of river Raidak when the irrigation dam was constructed. Appellants are entitled to be compensated on this score. 13. The provisions of Act of 2013 inter alia provide for compensation of land acquired for a public purpose. Inundation of appellants’ lands due to change of river course is not within the scope of the said law. 14. Accordingly, prayer for compensation due to inundation of LR plot nos. 5411 and 5412 in LR kihatian no. 128 would not justify a prayer for compensation under the Act of 2013. 15. In light of the aforesaid discussion we find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. I agree. (Gaurang Kanth,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi,J.)