Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 45648 (CAL)

DOLI DAS @ DOLIRANI DAS v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

WPA/2251/2026 · 2026-10-01

Suvra Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION 01.10.2026 rc/ct.no.CB-06 Item No.20 WPA No. 2251 of 2026 Doli Das @ Dolirani Das Versus Union of India & Ors. Adv. Memonur Rahman Adv. Bikash Singha ..for the petitioner Adv. Dipankar Sen Adv. Alok Sah ….for the State Adv. Supriya Singh … for the NHAI Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s land was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalpaiguri for construction/expansion of four lane national highway 31D but no compensation was paid to the petitioner for the same for which the petitioner submitted a representation before the concerned authority. The representation was not considered which prompted the petitioner to approach this Court in a writ petition being WPA No. 908 of 2023. By an order passed on May 08, 2023, a coordinate Bench of this Court directed as hereunder :- “Considering the submissions made by the parties and the materials on record, I find that justice will be sub-served if I direct the 2 respondent no. 2, being the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 and the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, being the respondent no. 3 (wrongly typed as respondent no.4) to inform the petitioner about the present stage of his compensation proceedings within a period of three months from date. In the event, it is found that the petitioner is entitled to compensation in accordance with the provision of law and NHAI has paid the compensation for disbursement and there is no impediment to pay, expeditious steps should be taken for disbursement of the petitioner’s compensation, if any, in accordance with law.” Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the said order, the issue was taken up for consideration by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalpaiguri who by an order passed on June 29, 2026, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not submit any objection to the use of the land within the statutory period of 21 days from the date of publication of the notification under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act. The order also records that the claim of the petitioner being made after lapse of 15 years and not being substantiated, cannot be acceded to. 3 The said order is under challenge in the present application. The petitioner seeks compensation in lieu of acquisition of his land by the concerned authority and has admittedly not objected to the user of the said land. It appears that such compensation has not been disbursed in favour of the petitioner till date. The acquisition is not in dispute. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that the concerned authority has misdirected himself in rejecting the request of the petitioner for compensation and in recording the objection of the petitioner to the user of the land as well as lapse of 15 years from the date of acquisition of the land. The order impugned dated June 29, 2026 passed by the Special Land Acqusition Officer, Jalpaiguri is set aside/quashed. Since no compensation has been granted by the authority to the petitioner till date, the concerned authority being the Special Land Acqusition Officer, Jalpaiguri, the 3rd respondent herein, is directed to assess such compensation in terms of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 upon granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take a reasoned decision with regard to 4 the issue within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. In the event the authority arrives at a conclusion in favour of the petitioner, such compensation be disbursed at the earliest. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh,J)