Sri Narayan Chandra Paul Vs State of West Bengal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

Sri Narayan Chandra Paul Vs State of West Bengal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh proceeding before an Appropriate Forum, if so advised, in accordance with law; all issues on merits left open; all connected applications including CAN/1/2024 disposed of as infructuous.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions claiming compensation for premises acquired by the State are maintainable, given disputed questions of fact and rival claims requiring elaborate fact-finding including tracing of title. +1 more

Court's answer

Rejection of a petition in limine is normally justified only where the nature of the claim or dispute requires elaborate and detailed ascertainment of facts and adducing of evidence which cannot be carried out in a summary proceeding.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the factual disputes and rival claims and counter claims, there is no scope to determine the compensation claim in the writ proceedings; it would require an elaborate fact-finding exercise including tracing of title.

Key takeaways

WPA 689/2020, WPA/686/2020 and WPA/690/2020 stand dismissed on the ground of maintainability.ratio¶20
There has been no adjudication on the merits of the case; all issues are left open to be decided in accordance with law, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh proceeding before an appropriate forum.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petitions (WPA 689/2020, WPA/686/2020, WPA/690/2020) alleging non-payment of compensation for premises acquired by the State were dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Relying on Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, (1969) 3 SCC 769, the Court held that where a claim involves disputed questions of fact, rival claims and counter claims, and requires elaborate fact-finding including tracing of title, it cannot be determined in summary proceedings under Article 226. Liberty was granted to the petitioners to institute fresh proceedings before the appropriate forum. The Court expressly recorded that there was no adjudication on the merits and all issues were left open. All connected applications, including CAN/1/2024, were disposed of as infructuous.

01.07.2025 Item No.14 to 16 Court No.01 SK(AR(CR)

In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

WPA/689/2020

IA NO: CAN/1/2024

SRI NARAYAN CHANDRA PAUL VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

With WPA/686/2020

SRI CHANDRESHWAR MAHATO VS

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

With WPA/690/2020

SRI DHIREN NANDI VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

Mr. Sandip Mandal, Mr. Amit Saha, …for the petitioner

Mr.Hirak Barman, Mr. B. Bose, …for the respondent Mr. Raja Saha, Mr. Subham Chanda, ….for SJOA.

This revisional application is directed against alleged non-payment of compensation.

It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that notwithstanding his premises having been acquired by the State they have not received any compensation.

On behalf of the respondent no. 3 being the Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority, it is submitted that by a communication dated

2

28 March, 2018, the Land Acquisition Department had categorically examined the respective claim of compensation made in the above petitions by the petitioners and rejected the same on the ground that the same could not be substantiated.

Ordinarily, in a petition under Article 226, the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. It is true that exercise of discretion must be on sound judicial principles. Thus, rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, only where the nature of the claim or dispute requires elaborate and detail ascertainment of facts and adducing of evidence which cannot be carried out in a summary proceeding. [ Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda , (1969) 3 SCC 769].

In view of the factual disputes which arises for consideration and the rival claims and counter claims made, there is no scope to determine the same in such proceedings. The claim for compensation would require an elaborate fact finding exercise including tracing of tile in respect of the subject premises.

WPA 689/2020, WPA/686/2020 and WPA/690/2020 stand dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

3

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh proceeding before an Appropriate Forum, if so advised in accordance with law.

It is made clear that there has been no adjudication insofar as the merits of the case are concerned and all issues are left open to be decided in accordance with law.

All connected applications including CAN/1/2024 also stands disposed of as infructuous.

(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)