Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7768 (CAL)

KAMALESH MONDAL AND ANR. v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS.

WPA/3181/2026 · 2026-03-30

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Court No. 19 (265719) 30.03.2026 (AD 28) (S. Banerjee) WPA 3181 of 2026 Kamalesh Mondal & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South 24 Parganas & Ors. Mr. B. P. Mondal Mr. Sukanta Mondal …for the petitioners Ms. Mitali Mukherjee Mr. Sayak Chakrabarty …for the State Petitioners claim to be the owner of several plots of land. Petitioner alleges that the property of the petitioners has been utilised for the purpose of construction of a concrete dam and for strengthening the dam which got damaged due the ‘Aila Cyclone’. Petitioners allege that though the property of the petitioners has been utilised, no compensation has been paid to the petitioners till date. Pursuant to the order dated February 20, 2026, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, South 24 Parganas filed the report dated March 12, 2026 which is taken on record. It has been specifically stated in the said report that 0.46 acres of land from the north-east portion of RS Plot no. 1161 and the entire 0.61 acres fo RS Plot NO. 1164 of Mouza – Kachukhali, JL No. 95 under Police Station Gosaba 2 has been acquired in LA case No. 4/33 of 2012-13 for reconstruction of ‘Aila’ affected areas of Sundarban. Notification under Section (4) of Act-I of 1894 was published in the Kolkata Gazette (Extraordinary) on February 13, 2013 including the aforesaid plots. Subsequently declaration under section (6) of Act-I was published in the Kolkata Gazette (Extraordinary) on March 19, 2015. Award was declared in respect of RS plot nos. 1161 and 1164 and the name of the petitioners finds place under award serial no. 181 and the compensation amount was paid to the petitioners on November 24, 2016 vide cheque no. 098221. The said report states that RS Plot no. 1171 of the said mouza is not involved in any land acquisition case. No material could be produced by the petitioners to controvert the aforesaid factual position. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)