State of West Bengal Vs Amitava Das and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Calcutta HC (2025)

State of West Bengal Vs Amitava Das and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on contest without any order as to costs, affirming the impugned judgment and award dated January 22, 2019; the learned Registrar General directed to disburse the amount deposited by the State/appellant, with accrued interest and after necessary statutory deductions, to the referring claimants/respondents as and when approached; liberty to levy execution/proceed with connected execution case for any balance; formal decree to be drawn up.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment and award in the land acquisition reference suffers from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by the High Court in appeal. +1 more

Court's answer

Upon going through the materials on record and the trial court records, the Court found justification in the contention of the respondents.

Ratio / Principle

Since the learned trial Judge acted on the evidence, materials and undisputed documents on record, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award, and there is no scope of interference in the present appeal.

Key takeaways

The documents sought to be relied upon by the State regarding the date of possession could not be looked into, as they were not produced before the learned trial Judge and no application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was filed by the State.ratio¶14
The State did not adduce any evidence in the court below, whereas the referring claimant had deposed in support of their case.ratio¶22
The State had not raised any objection before the trial Court regarding the date of possession.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

F.A.T 96 of 2021 (High Court at Calcutta, judgment dated 01.05.2025; Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, JJ.): The State of West Bengal appealed against the judgment and award dated January 22, 2019 of the learned Additional District Judge, Fourth Court at Alipore, District: South 24 Parganas, in LDC Case No. 11 of 2009 (V), a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act arising from a notification published on November 11, 2008. The State contended that though the trial judge recorded the date of taking possession as December 27, 1989, possession was actually taken on March 30, 2009, but sought to rely on documents without filing any application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the Court declined to look into such unproduced documents. The Court noted that the State had adduced no evidence in the court below while the referring claimant had deposed, had raised no objection before the trial court on the date of possession, and that the State's review application against the impugned judgment stood rejected and had attained finality. Held: since the trial judge acted on the evidence, materials and undisputed documents on record, there was no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award and no scope of interference. Appeal dismissed on contest without costs, affirming the impugned judgment and award; Registrar General directed to disburse the State's deposit with accrued interest, after statutory deductions, to the referring claimants, with liberty to execute for any balance; formal decree to be drawn up.

Form No. J(2)

In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side

Present: The Hon’be Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And

The Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar

F.A.T 96 of 2021

State of West Bengal

Vs.

Amitava Das and another

For the appellant/State	: Mr. Asish Kumar Guha Mr. Benazir Ahmed
For the respondents	: Mr. Supratim Dhar Mr. Dhananjay Nayak
Heard on	: 01.05.2025
Judgment on	: 01.05.2025

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the notification, in respect of which the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, giving rise to the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, was published on November 11, 2008.

2

2. It is argued that although it was recorded by the learned Trial Judge that the date of taking possession was December 27, 1989, possession was actually taken on March 30, 2009.

3. Although learned counsel for the State seeks to rely on certain documents in that regard, we find that no application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the State and hence, such proposed documents having not been produced before the learned trial Judge, we are unable to look into such documents.

4. Learned counsel for the referring claimants/respondents submits that in the trial court, a written synopsis was made and filed by the learned Advocate appearing for the referring claimant giving the necessary particulars, which was received by the learned Government Pleader, who appeared for the State in the court below, and counter signed by the said learned Government Pleader.

5. The impugned judgment, it is submitted, was passed on the basis of the said synopsis as well as the Rate Report authored by the Collector, which also recorded the name of the scheme and the purpose of acquisition as well as other necessary details.

6. More importantly, learned counsel for the referring claimants submits that a review application was filed by the State in the trial court in respect of the impugned judgment which was

3

rejected and has attained finality, in the absence of any challenge thereto.

7. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and the appeal should be dismissed.

8. Upon going through the materials on record as well as the trial court records, we find justification in the contention of the respondents.

9. We also find that the State did not adduce any evidence in the court below, whereas the referring claimant had deposed in support of their case.

10. The State had also not raised any objection before the trial Court regarding the date of possession.

11. Since the learned trial Judge acted on the evidence and materials on record and the undisputed documents before him, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award. Thus, we are of the opinion that there is no scope of interference in the present appeal.

12. Accordingly, FAT 96 of 2021 is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs, thereby affirming the impugned judgment and award dated January 22, 2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fourth Court at Alipore, District: South 24Parganas in LDC Case No. 11 of 2009 (V).

4

13. The learned Registrar General shall disburse the amount deposited by the State/appellant with the learned Registrar General in connection with the appeal in favour of the referring claimants/respondents, as and when so approached, along with the interest accrued on the same, after deducting the necessary statutory deductions.

14. In the event the said amount does not meet the entire awarded amount, it will be open to the referring claimants/respondents to levy execution/proceed with the connected execution case, if already filed, for recovery of the balance amount.

15. A formal decree be drawn up accordingly .

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

I agree.

(Uday Kumar, J.)

AD-29 AK