Aniruddha Bose, J. - (1.) In these two appeals, the appellants, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (in F.M.A. No. 4805 of 2015) and the State of West Bengal in (M.A.T. No. 347 of 2016) are seeking to invalidate the judgment and order of the learned First Court directing the State Authorities to acquire a property comprising of an area of 2 Bighas 8 Cottas 3 Chittacks and 38 Sq. ft. situated in Mouza Kasba, Holding No. 333, under Sub-Division Block 'K', Division-V, Police Station Kasba, in the District of South 24 Parganas, upon notice to the writ petitioners and pass award accordingly. The judgment and order of the learned First Court delivered on 2nd June 2015 further directs award compensation thereof to the legitimate owners of the said land, being the writ petitioners, who are the respondents before us. This direction was issued by the learned First Court after the Court found the said land stood appropriated by the State and its agency, KMDA, without taking recourse to any legal proceeding and a housing complex had been allowed to come up there, in spite of a status quo order passed by the Trial Court in a suit brought by the writ petitioners. During pendency of this appeal, the second writ petitioner passed away and her legal heirs have been brought on record. The entire proceeding was directed to be completed within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order and acquisition was directed to be made following the relevant provisions of law applicable at the time of delivery of the judgment. The judgment was delivered on 2nd June, 2015. The aforesaid judgment and order was passed in W.P. No. 21429(W) of 2014.
(2.) The land admittedly belonged to one Sumohan Chatterjee (since deceased). The respondents/writ petitioners are his legal heirs. Said Sumohan Chatterjee had purchased the land on 29th July, 1942 and obtained certificate of sale as well as delivery of possession thereof. Sumohan Chatterjee passed away on 27th September, 1983. The land, which is subject-matter of this proceeding is comprised in portions of seven plots being Plot Nos. 4219, 4220, 4238, 4239, 4240, 4241 and 4242. It appears that rent was last paid in respect of the land involved in the year 1972. The appellants, and in particular KMDA's case is that though the revenue sale in favour of Sumohan Chatterjee was recorded in the Rent Roll Register No. 1, no step was taken by the owner thereof to record his name in the record-of-rights. In relation to the said land, initially a suit was instituted in the 5th Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore, which was registered as T.S. No. 142 of 1999, and subsequently renumbered T.S. No. 117 of 2005. The plaintiffs in that suit were the writ petitioners/respondents and their predecessor. In that suit, stand of the State and its agencies and officers was that the subject-land was acquired under the provisions of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 for pubic purpose and possession thereof was handed over to the KMDA and award was also made by the collector to the recorded owners thereof. KMDA claims to have come into possession of the subject-land on 8th January 1976 and acquisition thereof was made in stages, on different dates in 1981 and 1983.
(3.) Dispute over the land originally arose when legal heirs of said Sumohan Chatterjee sought to tender rent in respect thereof, which was refused by the authorities. In response to an application made on behalf of the writ petitioners, the land authorities informed them that rent could not be accepted as the land stood acquired. The writ petitioners could not get any information from the office of the land acquisition collector as regards the acquisition proceeding and this prompted them to institute a writ petition for appropriate relief. That writ petition was registered as W.P. No. 10184(W) of 1998, and was disposed of with a direction upon the authorities to dispose of the representation of the writ petitioners in that regard within a period of eight weeks. This order was passed on 9th June 1998 and it was stipulated in the order that status quo as on the date of passing of the order was to be maintained till such disposal provided communication was made within the prescribed timeframe. The land acquisition collector by an order dated 6th April 1999 gave an inconclusive finding on the issue referring to record-of-rights, which did not reflect the name of the writ petitioners or their predecessors. In that order of 6th April 1999, it was, inter alia, observed by the Land Acquisition Collector:- "The presumption of land in favour of accuracy of the entry in the R.o.R. follows from the fact that such record is prepared after due publicity and notifications and upon hearing objections and interested parties. The entry in the R.o.Rs made after such procedure, is therefore, presumed to be correct until contrary is proved by evidence. In addition, R.o.R. is a document of possession which is prime factor of holding land either exercising possession directly or otherwise through others. L.R. Act also has laid stress on possession. The petitioners, as there is reason to believe, never exercised possession over the land and so did not approach settlement authority to get their names recorded in R.o.Rs. even after that they did not file any suit for correction of records in Civil Court which is the only forum which can pronounce judgment on the correctness or otherwise of the entry in R.o.Rs, title can be declared by the Civil Court. As no challenge has since been made in legal forum by the petitioner against the recorded persons, the rights of persons who have not been made parties will not be affected and the R.o.Rs will be presumed to be correct in the favour of recorded person.";