Dismissed¶15

Anowara Begum and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC6 May 2025WP.CT/89/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.C.T. 89 of 2025, Anowara Begum & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.; railway land-loser appointment claim; lands allegedly acquired 2001; Notification dated 16.07.2010, para 8 exclusion (acquisition concluded by possession); O.A. No. 1236 of 2023 before C.A.T. Kolkata Bench; order dated 22.09.2023; compensation paid 2017 (amount unstated); writ petition dismissed by Division Bench (Madhuresh Prasad, J. and Supratim Bhattacharya, J.).

What did the court decide?

Paragraph 8 of the Notification dated 16.07.2010 expressly provides that the land-loser instructions will normally not apply where the land acquisition process has been concluded by way of possession of land by the Railway. ¶11

Anowara Begum and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Ct. No.4 D/L 06.05.2025 (Naba) 18

¶2

W.P.C.T. 89 of 2025

¶3

Anowara Begum & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Mahadeb Ghosh, Mr. Pritam Ghosh

¶5

...for the Petitioners

¶6

Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the

¶7

petitioners is taken on record.

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶9

The petitioners claim that their lands were acquired in 2001. The petitioners thereafter have raised their claim for appointment as land losers before the Railway authorities.

¶10

The alleged acquisition of the petitioners’ lands done in 2001, has been raised for obtaining the benefit under a Notification for land losers, issued much later, in the year 2010 by filing an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in the year 2023. The Notification dated 16.07.2010 in paragraph 8 clearly specifies as follows:

¶11

“8. These instructions normally will not be applicable in those cases where land acquisition process has been concluded by way of possession of land by Railway.”

¶12

¶13

In view of the specific provision contained in the Notification of 2001 and there being no assertion by the petitioners that the possession was not taken over prior to issuance of the notification, there was no scope for the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter to referred to as ‘the C.A.T.’) to interfere with the order passed by the respondents rejecting the petitioners’ claim. 6. We have asked the learned counsel for the petitioners in the present proceedings also to point out on which date the possession of the petitioners’ land was taken over. He has not been able to show any assertion that possession was taken over after 2010 or after coming into force of the Notification dated 16.07.2010. He only submits that some compensation amount was paid in 2017.

¶14

We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the C.A.T. in O.A. No. 1236 of 2023.

¶15

The Writ Petition being W.P.C.T. 89 of 2025 is dismissed.

¶16

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

¶17

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)

Anowara Begum and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anowara Begum and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanu Mondal (Mistry) @ Sanu Bala Mondal (Mistry) Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Babin Bakshi Vs the Union of India and Ors.

The Principal Commissioner of Cgst and Cx, Kolkata North Cgst and Cx Kolkata North Cgst and Cx Com. Vs Rajesh Dutta and Ors.

Guruprosad Banerjee and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

The General Manager, Ammunition Factory Khadki Vs Bharatiya Samrakshan Kamgar Sangh (R) and Ors.

Deepa Patra Vs Union of India and Ors.