Partly allowed

Samir Chanda @ Samir Kumar Chanda and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC5 Jan 2024WPA/7632/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside a Deputy Refugee Relief Commissioner order limiting land area to 2 1/2 cottahs, directing issuance of freehold title for 4 cottahs, 14 chittacks based on a 1987 notification allowing 5 cottahs for families in effective possession.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order limiting area set aside. 2nd respondent directed to issue freehold title deed in favour of petitioners in respect of four cottahs, fourteen and half chittaks of land within two months.

Samir Chanda @ Samir Kumar Chanda and Anr. Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

January 05, 2024 ARDR (7)

¶2

WPA 7632 of 2023

¶3

Samir Chanda @ Samir Kumar Chanda & ors. Vs.

¶4

The State of West Bengal & ors.

¶5

Adv. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh,

¶6

…for the petitioners.

¶7

Adv. Chandi Charan De, Adv. Anirban Sarkar,

¶8

…for the State.

¶9

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶10

The petitioners being the legal heirs of the original allottee Surya Kanta Chanda, since deceased, have assailed the order passed by the Deputy Refugee Relief Commissioner, West Bengal on 20^th June, 2022, wherein the Commissioner observed that while initiating the process for issuance of freehold title deed in favour of the legal heirs of the original allottee, total area of land shall not be more than 2¼ cottahs in respect of S.P. No. 98, E.P. no.124 of Bidhan Pally Colony as per terms and conditions of the letter of authorisation dated 15^th February, 1967 issued in favour of the original allottee.

¶11

Clause 2 of the letter of authorisation records that the original allottee shall occupy only plot of land measuring two and one-fourth cottahs as shown in the departmental survey map allotted to him. Clause 3 says that if the allottee desires to occupy or be found to be occupying any area in excess of two and one-fourth cottahs he shall pay to the Government the value of the

¶12

¶13

excess land as determined by the Government at such rate as may be fixed by the Government in accordance with the provisions of Clause 4 thereof.

¶14

A notification was published by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal on 20^th April, 1987 deciding the guidelines for implementation of the scheme of conferment of right and title to refugee settlors in urban area of West Bengal. According to the notification, freehold title deed may be executed only in favour of the displaced persons from the erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) who is in effective possession of an urban plot or a part thereof with a structure on a portion of it as his own as allottee/ arpan patra holder regularised squatters on lands belonging to the State Government in the Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department acquired or received through transfer through the process of law provided that the said plot is free from legal proceedings/law suits, or of disputes serious in nature.

¶15

The notification further demonstrates that the freehold title deed shall be executed in favour of persons who are found to be in effective possession of the plot subject to a maximum of five cottahs of homestead land per family unit.

¶16

In a compliance report filed by the Deputy Refugee Relief Commissioner, Government of West Bengal on 15^th March, 2016 before a coordinate Bench of this Court in

¶17

¶18

WP no.31 (W) of 2016, the authority submitted that the present petitioners along with other legal heirs of the original allottee are maintaining effective possession of a total area of four cottahs, fourteen and half chittacks in the plot in question as legal heirs of the original allottee Surya Kanta Chanda. The compliance refers to a departmental G.O. no.1240(17) Rehad/18 R-9-87 which states that freehold title deed may be executed in favour of displaced persons who are in effective possession of the plot in question.

¶19

Surprisingly, the same authority, by the order impugned, has recorded that the petitioners along with other legal heirs of the original allottee shall not be entitled to more than two and one-fourth cottahs in terms of the letter of authorisation dated 15^th February, 1967.

¶20

The letter of authorisation indicates initial allotment of the plot to the extent of two and one-fourth cottahs in favour of the original allottee and grants liberty to the allottee to occupy any area in excess of the same upon payment of the value of excess land. The said authorisation letter is followed by the notification dated 20^th April, 1987 which allows the petitioners along with other legal heirs of the original allottee to occupy a maximum of five cottahs of homestead land and entitles them to freehold right and title to the land. The petitioners’ claim has been admitted by the authority in

¶21

¶22

the compliance report dated 15^th March, 2016, wherein the authority has held that the petitioners along with other legal heirs are in effective possession of four cottahs fourteen and half chittacks of land.

¶23

In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that the petitioners along with other legal heirs of the original allottee are entitled to freehold title deed in respect of four cottahs, fourteen and half chittacks of land in the plot in question in terms of the notification dated 20^th April, 1987 and the concerned authority, being the 2^nd respondent herein, be directed to take necessary steps for issuance of freehold title deed in their favour accordingly.

¶24

The portion of the order dated 20^th June, 2022 passed by the Deputy Refugee Relief Commissioner to the extent that “total area of land shall not be more than two and half cottahs” is set aside.

¶25

Since notice has been issued by the said authority upon all the legal heirs including the petitioners on 13^th January, 2016 for putting their signatures in the site plan prepared by the authority on the basis of conrit record and effective possession, the 2^nd respondent is directed to take necessary consequential steps for issuance of freehold title deed in favour of the legal heirs including the petitioners in respect of four cottahs, fourteen and half chittaks of land in the plot in question in terms of the notification dated 20^th April, 1987 and the

¶26

¶27

compliance report dated 15^th March, 2016 upon affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioners, if required, in accordance with law.

¶28

The entire exercise should be completed within two months from the date of communication of this order.

¶29

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶30

There shall however, be no order as to costs.

¶31

Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained

¶32

in the petition are deemed not to be admitted.

¶33

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶34

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)

Samir Chanda @ Samir Kumar Chanda and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samir Chanda @ Samir Kumar Chanda and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manirul Khan and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mrinal Kanti Dey Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Gangarampur Matsyajibi Samabya Samity Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sk. Jobir Hosain Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Santanu Majumder Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Purnima Chakraborty Vs District Sub-Registrar-I, Alipore and Ors.