Joydeb Bhunia Vs Union of India and Ors.

Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 has filed a report dated 21.04.2025 after serving a copy of the same to the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner.

¶11

Let the report dated 21.04.2025 as issued by the Railway Authority be taken on record.

¶12

By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities for disbursement of adequate compensation for the acquisition of the writ petitioner’s land with a further direction for providing a job to the writ petitioner being a family member of the land looser.

¶13

Mr. Jana, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page no. 15 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the LRROR in respect of LR plot no. 799 in

¶14

2

¶15

Mouza – Haripur under Khatian 2367 in the District – Purba Medinipur. According to Mr. Jana the said plot of land stands in the name of the writ petitioner. At this juncture, Mr. Jana, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner draws attention of this Court to page no. 22 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the letter dated Nil as has been addressed to the various authorities of the Railways authorities which have been sent on 10.01.2025 under speed post.

¶16

It is submitted that under cover of the said letter a prayer has been made by the writ petitioner that on account of the acquisition of the writ petitioner’s land, the present writ petitioner be provided with adequate compensation along with a job under the Land Looser Scheme.

¶17

Per contra , Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 in course of his submission at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the report dated 21.04.2025 as has been submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 which has been taken on record today.

¶18

It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh that from the said report it would reveal that in the LR plot no. 799 admittedly 41.90 decimal of land out of total 2.14 acre of the said land was acquired in terms of the provisions of the Railways Amendment Act, 2008 from the land shares/apportionment of one Late Ananta Kumar Maity who was one of the recorded owner of the said plot of land to the extent of 64 decimal. It is further

¶19

3

¶20

submitted by Mr. Ghosh that for the aforesaid reason compensation was paid to the successor in interest of the deceased Manoranjan Maity that is to Ananta Kumar Maity.

¶21

It is further submitted by Mr. Ghosh that from the report dated 21.04.2025 it would reveal further that no land of the writ petitioner was acquired in the said acquisition proceeding from the said plot of land. Mr. Ghosh thus submits that for the aforesaid reason the writ petitioner may not be granted with any relief as prayed for.

¶22

On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned Advocates for the contending parties it reveals that sufficient materials have been placed before this Court to substantiate that for the purpose of laying Deshapran-Nandigram New BG Line in the District – Purba Medinipore, State of West Bengal several lands were acquired out of which in LR plot no. 799 in Mouza – Haripur out of 2.14 acres of land only 41.90 decimal land was acquired which at the material time was recorded in the name of one Ananta Kumar Maity.

¶23

Sufficient materials have also been placed on behalf of the Railway Authority that after completion of the acquisition proceeding, adequate compensation was disbursed to the legal heirs of the said recorded owner.

¶24

Though such contention has been disputed on behalf of the writ petitioner but in course of hearing no materials could be placed before this Court on behalf of

¶25

4

¶26

the writ petitioner that in the said plot no. 799 any portion of the land of the writ petitioner was acquired at all. This Court has also perused the relevant notification regarding the said acquisition which supports the contention of the railway authority.

¶27

In view of such, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition.

¶28

Accordingly, the instant writ petition being WPA 7348 of 2025 is dismissed.

¶29

There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

¶30

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities.

¶31

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)

Joydeb Bhunia v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joydeb Bhunia 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

Sudip Bhattacharyya Vs the State of West Bengal and Others

Subir Ghosh and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sudheshwar Kumar Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Laha Sporting Club Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Dibakar Kamila and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Sardar and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.