Form No. J (2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi FMA 388 of 2025 IA NO: CAN/1/2025 Srimatya Anita Maiti & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Appellants : Mr. A. Gayen, Advocate Ms. A. A. Gayen, Advocate For the State : Md. T. M. Siddiqui, Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Suddhadev Adak, Advocate For the Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Nirmalendu Bera, Advocate Ms. Kalpana Khan Mondal, Advocate Ms. Sunanda Samanta, Advocate Heard on : 02.05.2025 Judgment on : 02.05.2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- 1. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated January 15, 2025, passed in WPA 16533 of 1989. 2. The appeal is at the behest of the appellants. FMA 388 of 2025 2 3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, no acquisition took place in respect of plot no.126. He refers to the impugned order. He submits that, the impugned order proceeds on the basis of an earlier order of the Single Bench dated April 4, 2017, passed in WP 7798 (W) of 2015. He submits that, although the same plot of land was involved, nonetheless, the appellants were not parties to such writ petition. Therefore, the impugned order dated April 4, 2017 is not binding upon the appellants. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, so far as the writ petition of the appellants is concerned, being WPA 16533 of 1989, the same was initially disposed of by an order of dismissal. Appeal carried therefrom was disposed of by the Division Bench on August 19, 1993. The Division Bench directed stay of all proceedings in the land acquisition case. He submits that, in view of such stay granted, the acquisition proceedings could attain finality as held by the learned Single Judge. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants refers to the tax paid receipts in respect of plot concerned. He also draws the attention of the Court to the dealings of the authorities, in respect of plot no.185. 6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the appellants did not receive any compensation. He relies upon 2024 INSC 435 (Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. V. Bimal Kumar Shah & FMA 388 of 2025 3 Ors.) in support of the proposition that, without possession acquisition is not complete. He contends that, possession was never taken. 7. State and the School Authorities are represented. 8. Learned advocate appearing for the State draws the attention of the Court to the order dated April 4, 2017 and submits that, such order records that, acquisition proceedings were completed and that, award was passed. He points out that, the appellants before us and the petitioner, in the writ petition resulting in the order dated April 4, 2017 are close relatives. He contends that, appellants before us were well aware of the order dated April 4, 2017 passed in W.P. 7798 (W) of 2015. 9. Acquisition of Plot No.126 was in question in the writ petition resulting in the impugned judgment and order and obviously in the present appeal. Acquisition proceedings in respect of Plot No.126 culminated into an award being passed on August 6, 1993 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This appears from the order dated April 4, 2017 passed in W.P. 7798 (W) of 2015. 10. No material is placed on record to establish that the findings returned by the learned Single Judge on April 4, 2017 in W.P. 7798 (W) of 2015 with regard to the acquisition proceedings in respect of Plot No.126 including declaration of award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 declared on August 6, 1993 are perverse. FMA 388 of 2025 4 11. That being so, Plot No.126 stood vested with the State. The writ petitioner in W.P. 7798 (W) of 2015 was given notice for collection of the compensation which he did not collect. 12. Plot involved in W.P. 7798 (W) of 2015 and in the present writ petition as well as the appeal is the same. 13. Therefore, the embargo of stay passed by the Division Bench in the present writ petition on August 19, 1993 staying all further proceedings in the L.A. Case does not impinge upon the declaration of award dated August 6, 1993 which prior in point of time than the order of stay. 14. It is trite law that, payment of tax or mutation in the record of rights or in the Municipal records or the Corporation’s record is not a declaration of title. Therefore, appellants cannot take the shelter of payment of tax in respect of immovable property to claim ownership or that, the acquisition was not complete. 15. The authorities dealt with the separate plot being No.185 in a particular manner. Manner of dealing of other plot ipso facto does not affect the validity of the acquisition proceedings so far as Plot No.126 is concerned. 16. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors. (supra) was rendered in the context of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and in particular Section 352 thereof which vests powers on Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authorities to acquire land for the purpose of public street and public places. In such FMA 388 of 2025 5 context, interpretation of Section 352 of the Act of 1980 was rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In such context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, if possession is not taken acquisition is not complete. The ratio laid down therein is not altered in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. Learned Single Judge, rightly proceeded on the basis of the order dated April 4, 2017 rendered in W.P. 7798 (W) 2015 being a coordinate Bench. We find no infirmity in such reasoning of the learned Single Judge. 18. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the present appeal. 19. FMA 388 of 2025 alongwith connected application is dismissed. (Debangsu Basak, J.) 20. I agree. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) CHC