Dismissed¶16

Dhanesh Barman v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC14 May 2025MAT/33/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dhanesh Barman vs Union of India & Ors.; MAT/33/2025; Calcutta High Court Circuit Bench Jalpaiguri; decided 14.05.2025; Single Bench judgment dated 07.04.2025; section 6 Land Acquisition Act; Kolkata Gazette publication 06.03.2002; compensation paid to recorded owner Tushar Kanti Ghosh 06.08.2002; second acquisition proceeding 2010; purchase of 1.15 acres out of 1.19 acres freehold in 2021; grievance against vendor; remedy against vendor; impugned order no interference; appeal dismissed; Rajasekhar Mantha, J.; Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.; Mr. K. Das for appellant.

What did the court decide?

Even taking into account the documents newly produced by the appellant before this Court, the petitioner purchased land that had already been acquired by the State in the year 2010. ¶13

Dhanesh Barman Vs Union of India and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

14.5.2025 SL No.6 Court No.1 (tk)

¶2

Calcutta High Court In The Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Mandamus Appellate Jurisdiction

¶3

MAT/33/2025

¶4

Dhanesh Barman -vs-

¶5

Union of India & Ors.

¶6

Mr. K. Das, for appellant.

¶7

The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 7, 2025.

¶8

By the impugned order, the Court found that the land sold to the petitioner by his vendor was earlier acquired under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and was published in the Kolkata Gazette on March 6, 2002. The compensation was duly paid to the recorded owner, namely Tushar Kanti Ghosh on August 6, 2002.

¶9

It is on this basis that the Court found that the grievance of the petitioner, if at all against his vendor Tushar Kanti Ghosh, though not in so many words.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant produces certain documents before this Court today to indicate that he has purchased 1.15 acres of land

¶11

¶12

out of the free hold property of Tushar Kanti Ghosh, comprising in 1.19 acres of land. This land, according to the petitioner, was not part of the first acquisition proceeding, but was part of the second acquisition proceeding done in the year 2010. The petitioner purchased this land in 2021.

¶13

It is, therefore, clear and explicit that even with the documents produced by the appellant not hitherto available when the matter was moved before the Single Bench, the petitioner has purchased the land that had already been acquired in the year 2010 by the State.

¶14

In those circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner, if any, is against his vendor Tushar Kanti Ghosh who has sold the land of 1.15 acres despite the same having been acquired by the State.

¶15

In those circumstances, the remedy of the petitioner is, as already stated above, against his vendor Tushar Kanti Ghosh, and the impugned order calls for no interference.

¶16

MAT/33/2025 accordingly stands dismissed.

¶17

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

¶18

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

Dhanesh Barman v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanesh Barman v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratima Sarkar and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Bina Das Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Pema Pradhan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ganesh Das and Ors. Vs Krishna Mahanta and Ors.

Supriyo Das Vs Nibedita Das Chakraborty

Souvik Shome Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.