Biswanath Somadder, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of a judgement and order dated 9th December, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.26559(W) of 2014 (Niladri Chatterjee & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.)
(2.) The appellants before us are the State of West Bengal represented by the Secretary, Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal, the Collector, Burdwan and other authorities of the State. By the impugned judgement and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition by directing the State authorities including the Special Land Acquisition Collector to assess the land compensation in terms of the provisions contained under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013) within a certain timeframe and to communicate the same to the Requiring Body with a further direction upon the Requiring Body to release funds within 4 weeks from getting such intimation. Upon receipt of the fund, the Land Acquisition Collector was directed to make payment to the writ petitioners within 2 weeks thereafter, in case there was any delay in assessing the value of the land and in making payment, the concerned authorities would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum upon the land value to be calculated from the expiry of the time limit fixed by the learned Single Judge and till the date of payment. The learned Single Judge made it clear that the writ petitioners would produce and show documents relating to the title to the concerned Collector. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
(3.) In the instant appeal, several grounds have been taken, which includes the following:- "IV. FOR THAT while passing the said Judgment and Order dated 9th December 2014 the Hon'ble Single Judge failed to consider that there are no reasons for allowing the writ petition and for directing the Appellants to pay compensation to the Writ Petitioners under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and hence the same is violative of the principles of natural justice to be set aside. V. FOR THAT the on or about 21st April 1992, a notification under Section 4(1a) of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 was published in order to acquire the said plots of land being No. 238, 250 and 255, J. L. No.57, Khaitan No. 100 at Mouza Chakpratabpur though the possession was taken over by the representatives of the Appellant No.7 as Requiring Body on 29th April 1978. VI. FOR THAT the Hon'ble Single Judge owing to nonconsideration of the following facts erred in directing the Appellants to assess the Writ Petitioners / Respondents lands' value as per the provisions under the new Act of 2013:- a) That, the requisition of land concerned was initiated under Section 4(1A) of the Act II, 1948. b) That, the Act of 1948 was repealed with effect from 1st April 1997. c) That, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stands repealed with effect from 31st December 2013. d) That, under Section 24(1) of the Act of 2013 provides that cases initiated and alive under ActI can only be continued and concluded. But there is no provision for converting the lapsed Act-II Case into the new Act of 2013 VII. FOR THAT the Hon'ble Single Judge failed to consider the fact that there is no provision for concerting the lapsed Act II case into the ambit of the new Act of 2013. Further giving current market price for the land possession of which was taken long back in the year 1978 will not be just, reasonable and appropriate. To ensure justice the value of the said plot of land may be computed as on the date of taking possession of such plot of land but awarding current market price will be a huge and unjustified burden on the State exchequer and be detrimental to the interest of the Welfare State. VIII. FOR THAT the Hon'ble Single Judge erred in Law in not considering that the West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948) was repealed with effect from 1st April 1997. Sections 9(3A) and 9(3B) were interested in Land Acquisition Act 1894 for revival and completion of cases initiated under West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948) by December, 2015. The Land Acquisition Act 1894 is repealed with effect from 31st December 2013. X. FOR THAT the Hon'ble Single Judge failed to consider the fact that any concession, made on behalf of the State, by any Learned State Advocate other than the Learned Advocate General cannot be considered and/or treated as a valid concession on behalf of the state. Even a concession made by the Learned Advocate General has to be read in the light of right sense of the law. XI. FOR THAT the Hon'ble Single Judge erred in Law in not considering that the acquisition under Act II was initiated long ago by taking possession of the concerned land. Hence giving current market price for past acquisition will be inappropriate. For the sake of uniformity and justice, the value of land may be determined as on the date of possession. XII. FOR THAT the Hon'ble Single Judge erred in Law in not considering that the West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948) was repealed with effect from 1st April 1997. Sections 9(3A) and 9(3B) were interested in Land Acquisition Act 1894 for revival and completion of cases initiated under West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948) by December, 2015. The Land Acquisition Act 1894 is repealed with effect from 31st December 2013. XIII. FOR THAT the Hon'ble Single Judge erred in Law in not considering that cases initiated under Section 24(1) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and alive under Act I can be constituted and concluded. There are no provisions for converting the lapsed Act II cases. XIV. FOR THAT the Hon'ble Single Judge erred in Law in not considering that the acquisition under Act II was initiated long ago by taking possession of the concerned land. Hence giving current market price for past acquisition will be inappropriate. For the sake of uniformity and justice, the value of land may be determined as on the date of possession. XV. FOR THAT the Hon'ble Single Judge further failed to consider that once Section 4(1)(a) of the Act II was published by Gazette Notification the land in question would automatically vest to the Government of West Bengal being the Appellant herein, even if, no award was passed relating such land in question. XVI. FOR THAT the Hon'ble Single Judge further failed to consider that the owner of the land in question lost their title in terms of issuance of Gazette Notification, under Section 4 (1)(a) of the Act II the State, being appellant herein, has become owner of such land and in terms of provisions made in the new L. A. Act of 2013, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and as such the compensation would be made in terms of the earlier statute being Act I of 1894. XVII. FOR THAT once Section 4(1)(a) of the Act II was published by Gazette Notification, the land in question would automatically vest on the Government of West Bengal being the Appellant herein, even if, no award was passed relating such land in question. XVIII. FOR THAT the owner of the land in question lost their title in terms of issuance of Gazette Notification, under Section 4(1) (a) of the Act II the State, being appellant herein, has become owner of such land and in terms of provisions made in the new L. A. Act of 2013, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and as such the compensation would be made in terms of the earlier statute being Act I of 1894. XIX. FOR THAT the Hon'ble Single Judge further failed to consider that the land acquisition of the concerned land was initiated under Act II of 1948 and not under Act I of 1894. Hence the provisions of Section 24 of the L. A. Act 2013 as far as payment of compensation is concerned are not applicable.";