- (1.) This writ application is filed by the petitioners for de-requisition of the unutilized land lying and situated at Plot Nos. 2582, 2583, 2584 and 2585, J. L. No.22/2, Mouza Rajpur, P.S. Dhanikhali, District Hooghly.
(2.) The above plots of land were acquired by imitating a proceeding bearing L. A. Case No. 1-10/56-57 under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. In terms of the award declared in connection with the above land acquisition proceeding the recorded owners of Plot Nos.2583 and 2585 received the award money except Sri Ananta Kumar Koley. With regard to Plot Nos. 2582 and 2590, the petitioners did not come to receive the award money. Subsequently, the co-sharers of the above plots of land submitted a representation dated September 19, 1997 to the respondent No.2 for returning back the unutilized portion of the above plots of land from his sub-ordinate officers. The respondent No.3 recommended for de- requisition of the unutilized portion of the above plots of land by a communication dated November 24, 1999. According to that report some of the portions of the above plots of land were not utilized for the purpose for which the above plots of land were acquired. But the respondent authority did not take any steps for de-requisition of the unutilized portion of plots of land in question in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the admitted fact that some portions of the plots of land in question were not utilized for the purpose for which the same were acquired, there was no bar and/or impediment for the de-requisition of the same in favour of the petitioners. The attention of this Court is drawn towards some orders of returning the same portion of the adjacent plots of land to the similarly circumstanced owners.
(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Government Pleader, High Court, Calcutta that in view with the settled principles of law the unutilized portion of acquired lands cannot be returned to the erstwhile owners directly. The authority is under an obligation to consider the possibility of utilizing the unutilized plots of land for any other public purpose. If those plots of land cannot be used for any other public purpose in that event only those portions of the land can be put to public auction and the amount fetched in such public auction can be better utilized for the public purpose. It is also submitted by Mr. Banerjee that in view of the settled principles of law one wrong committed by the authority cannot be allowed to be repeated or perpetuated by directing him to pass similar orders. Mr. Banerjee relies upon decisions of State of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai, 1997 AIR(SC) 2703 and Kastha Niwarak G.S.S. Maryadit, Indore v. President, Indore Development Authority, 2006 AIR(SC) 1142 in support of his above submissions.;