SOUMITRA PAL,J. - (1.) In the writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents particularly on the District Magistrate and Collector, North 24-Parganas, the respondent no.2 to prepare compensation roll in their favour after considering the application dated 24th September, 2008, being annexure P-4 to the writ petition. The case of the petitioners is that their father Kanailal Mukherjee, since deceased, obtained the aforesaid land from his grand-mother Basanta Kumari Debi who purchased the said land by two deeds from the executrix of the State of Annapurna Debi alias Nanda Rani Debi by registered deed being volumed at Book no. II, pages 252 to 2550, deed no. 277 of 1947 and from the executrix of the estate of Annapurna Debi alias Promada Debi by registered deed, Book-I, pages 275 to 280, deed nos. 695 to 1945. After purchase of the said plots of land by Basanta Kumari Debi, since deceased, the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 came into force and as per the provisions contained in the said Act the names of Titagarh Paper Mill, Kelvin Jute Mill and Kennison Jute Mill were incorporated in the R.S. Record of Rights directly from the Records of Promoda Debi without incorporating the name of Basanta Kumari Debi though Basanta Kumari Debi and her legal heirs had been paying rents and rates of the said land to the State of West Bengal upto the year of 1987. Thereafter, the petitioners made an application dated 24th September, 2008 to the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, being A.D.M.(L.R.), North 24 Parganas, the respondent no.3 to prepare compensation roll in respect of the land measuring 58.11 acres in their favour in place and stead of Promoda Debi so that compensation can be granted in favour of them. Grievance is that the respondent no.3 has not replied to the said application dated 24th September, 2008. Therefore, prayer has been made for preparation of compensation roll. Learned advocate for the petitioners relying on the judgement of the Apex Court in Delhi Development Authority : (2011) 2 SCC 54 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another v. State of West Bengal and others : (2011) 4 WBLR (Cal) 283 submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, appropriate direction may be passed condoning the delay, if any, in moving the writ petition.
(2.) Mr. Dutta, learned advocate for the State, submits that as the cause of action, if any, arose in early 1950s the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of delay which has not been explained. Moreover records are not traceable and therefore it is not possible to state whether at the material point of time compensation was disbursed or not. In this regard, he has relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar : (1995) 4 SCC 683 .
(3.) Perusing the writ petition it appears that the plot of land in question was acquired under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, in the year 1953. Thereafter, the heirs of the original owner, that is, the petitioners had filed a representation dated 24th September, 2008 praying for preparation of compensation roll. In the writ petition there is no explanation why this writ petition has been moved on a cause of action, if any, which arose in the year 1953 that is after about 56 years. The judgement in Delhi Development Authority (supra) does not come to the aid of the petitioners as it is evident from paragraph 8 thereof that records were available since DO was issued on 18th January, 1973. The judgement in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra) also does not help the case of the petitioners wherein it has been held technicalities of time limit cannot be an embargo to condone the delay since in the instant writ petition there is no explanation why this writ petition has been moved on a cause of action which arose in early 1950s. In this regard the principles of law in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar (supra) are applicable since the Apex Court while allowing the appeal preferred by the State had held as under:- "25. In our view, the above allegation is in no way sufficient to hold that the writ petitioner (respondent here) has explained properly and satisfactorily the undue delay of 20 years which had occurred between the alleged taking of possession of his land and the date of filing of writ petition in the High Court. We cannot overlook the fact that it is easy to make such kind of allegations against anybody that too against the State. When such general allegation is made against a State in relation to an event said to have occurred 20 years earlier, and the State's non-compliance with petitioner's demands, the State may not at all be in a position to dispute such allegation, having regard to the manner in which it is required to carry on its governmental functions. Undue delay of 20 years on the part of the writ petitioner, in invoking the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for grant of compensation to his land alleged to have been taken by the governmental agencies, would suggest that his land was not taken at all, or if it had been taken it could not have been taken without his consent or if it was taken against his consent he had acquiesced in such taking and waived his right to take compensation for it.";