28.09.2026 Court No.07 Item Nos.35 & 36 AP HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI COT 9 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 With CAN 2 of 2026 Ankur Paul and Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal With FAT 5 of 2025 With CAN 2 of 2025, With CAN 3 of 2026 The State of West Bengal Vs. Smt. Gita Paul and Ors. Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh Mr. Deborshi Dhar Mr. Yogesh Tulsan Mr. N. Tamang ... For the Cross-Objectors/Respondents. Mr. Jagriti Mishra, AAAG Ms. Mrinmayee Das ... For the State. 1. Since this Court is inclined to remand the matter back to the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Darjeeling being the designated LA Court, the delay in filing COT 9 of 2026 is condoned. 2. Hence, CAN 1 of 2026 in COT 9 of 2026 is allowed. 3. The appeal and cross-objection arise out of a judgment dated 22nd December, 2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Darjeeling in MISC. L.A. Case No.56/1995. By the impugned judgment, 2 the LA Collector awarded certain sums of money for the land acquired by the LA Collector under the Act 2 for the benefit of the Irrigation Department of the Government of West Bengal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/State, Mr. Jagriti Mishra, would argue that the beneficiaries of the acquisition and the requiring body was not heard or made a party to the proceedings before the Trial Court. Even before the coordinate Bench, the requiring body was not heard. 5. Pre contra, Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the land losers/cross-objectants would argue that the Trial Judge should have passed higher compensation given the dicta of the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Jagadish Prosad Agarwal reported in (2017) SCC OnLine Cal 18181 and judgment dated 19th April, 2023 in FA 52 of 2001 (FAT 1917 of 1999) in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Shri Ramendra Nath Chowdhury & Anr. 6. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be served if the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court namely the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Darjeeling. 7. The Secretary, Irrigation Department & Waterways Department and the Executive Engineer, Mahananda Canal Division shall be added to the party respondents to 3 the proceedings before the Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Darjeeling. 8. Let copies of all pleadings before the Trial Court be served on the added respondents. 9. The Trial Court shall revisit the impugned judgment date 22nd December, 2014 and decide the matter afresh taking into consideration the submissions of the Irrigation Department and the Executive Engineer, Mahananda Canal Division. Judgments cited by Mr. Ghosh, referred to hereinabove, shall be taken due note by the Trial Court before arriving its decision. 10. The Trial Court may consider any interim payment to the appellants since the matter is already travelled from the Trial Court to this Court and now again on remand back to the Trial Court. 11. It is requested that the Trial Court dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. 12. It is made clear that neither parties wishes to any further evidence before the Trial Court. 13. Both parties shall be at liberty to rely upon any decisions being binded precedents on the Trial Court. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2014 and 29th October, 2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, 1st 4 Court, Darjeeling in MISC. L.A. Case No.56 of 1995 arising out of L.A. Case No.5/82-83 shall stand set aside. 15. Hence, COT 9 of 2026 and FAT 5 of 2025 are disposed of. Consequently, all connected pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)