Dismissed¶31

Rajabala Mondal v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Land acquisition – challenge after decades

Calcutta HC13 May 2025MAT/400/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Case: M.A.T. 400 of 2025, Rajabala Mondal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (arising from W.P.A. 17786 of 1998, judgment dt. 20-01-2025); decided 13.05.2025. Keywords: land acquisition 1962; writ petition 1998; unexplained delay/laches; unregistered agreement/deed for possession; no right, title or interest to challenge acquisition; original owner not contesting; debattor properties (raised only as appellant's submission); condonation of two days' delay; dismissal without costs. No statute or precedent cited in the text. Outcome: appeal dismissed; only relief was condonation of short filing delay.

What did the court decide?

Delay of two days in making and filing the appeal condoned (CAN/2/2025); M.A.T. 400 of 2025 alongwith CAN/1/2025 dismissed without any order as to costs. ¶31

Rajabala Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

13.05.2025 Item No.22 Ct. No.26 CHC (dismissed)

¶2

M.A.T. 400 of 2025 IA NO: CAN/1/2025 CAN/2/2025

¶3

Rajabala Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Dhiman Ray, Advocate

¶5

Mr. Pritam Modak, Advocate

¶6

Mr. Dip Chanda, Advocate

¶7

…for the appellant

¶8

Mr. Chandi Charan De, Ld. A.G.P.

¶9

Ms. Reshma Chatterjee, Advocate

¶10

…for the State

¶11

Mr. Alok Banerjee, Advocate

¶12

Mr. Ashok Kr. Jena, Advocate

¶13

…for the respondent no.2

¶14

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court be taken on record.

¶15

CAN/2/2025 is an application seeking condonation of delay of two days in making and filing the appeal.

¶16

For the ends of justice, the causes shown are accepted as sufficient and the delay of two days in making and filing the appeal is condoned.

¶17

The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated January 20, 2025 passed in W.P.A. 17786 of 1998.

¶18

By the impugned order, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of delay, no right of the appellant being affected as also no irregularity in the acquisition proceeding being established.

¶19

¶20

Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the appellant entered into unregistered agreement to possess the land in question. According to learned advocate for the appellant, the appellant is in possession of such portion of the land. According to him, such acquired portions which were not in the notice for acquisition and that, certain portions which are debattor properties were also acquired.

¶21

State and the respondent no.2 are represented.

¶22

Learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 submits that, his client is representing the authority. According to him, appellant does not possess any right, title and interest in respect of the property.

¶23

It transpires from the records that, acquisition proceeding in respect of the property in question was initiated in 1962. Writ petition was filed in 1998. Appellant, as the writ petitioner claims to be in possession by virtue of unregistered deed for possession allegedly executed by the original owner in favour of the appellant.

¶24

On the strength of the assertions of the appellant, therefore, the appellant is not claiming any higher or better right, title or interest in respect of the property than the original owner.

¶25

The original owner is not before Court challenging the acquisition proceeding.

¶26

Moreover, the acquisition proceeding are of vintage of 1962 with the writ petition being of 1998.

¶27

¶28

In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge, rightly held that, there was unexplained delay and that, the appellant did not possess any right, title and interest to assail the acquisition proceeding.

¶29

We find no ground to interfere with the judgment and order impugned.

¶30

M.A.T. 400 of 2025 alongwith CAN/1/2025 are

¶31

dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶32

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

¶33

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)

Rajabala Mondal v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajabala Mondal v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bapi @ Batul Das Vs State of West Bengal

Nasrin Khatun Vs Vinod Kumar and Ors.

Parikshit Mahato and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Nakubala Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs Shibaprasad Mondal

Kalipada Gorai Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.