Disposed

Sk. Abdul Hannan v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC16 Apr 2025WPA/7352/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court dismissed a writ petition directing Respondent No. 6 to treat a petitioner's letter dated 27.01.2025 as a formal representation. The authority must afford a hearing opportunity and pass a reasoned order within 90 working days, considering the grievance regarding unacquired land utilized for road construction.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 6 to treat the letter dated 27.01.2025 as a representation, conduct a hearing, and pass a reasoned order within 90 working days.

Sk. Abdul Hannan Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

S/L 15 16.04.2025 Court. No. 19 Sourav

¶2

WPA 7352 of 2025

¶3

Sk. Abdul Hannan Vs.

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Gazi Faruque Hossain Ms. Varsha Roy

¶6

… for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh Mr. Srikanta Paul

¶8

… for the State.

¶9

The affidavit-of-service as filed in Court today is taken on record.

¶10

At the very outset, learned advocate for the writ petitioner draws attention of this Court to Page No. 19 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the letter dated 27.01.2025 as written by the writ petitioner addressed to the respondents/authorities.

¶11

It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that a huge quantum of land belonging to the writ petitioner was utilized for the purpose of Bhatar-Samanti Road and Chatni Link Road without initiating any acquisition proceeding in accordance with law and for such unlawful utilization, the writ petitioner was also not given adequate compensation.

¶12

It is the case of the writ petitioner that despite receipt of

¶13

the said letter dated 27.01.2025, the respondents/authorities, more specifically, the respondent nos. 2, 4 and 6 sat tight over the matter and practically did nothing.

¶14

¶15

On perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, this Court while disposing the instant writ petition directs the respondent no. 6 to consider the letter dated 27.01.2025 as written by the writ petitioner as a representation of the writ petitioner and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and/or his authorized representative shall pass a reasoned order in writing and forthwith communicate the same to the writ petitioner preferably by mail, if the mail details of the writ petitioner is furnished to the respondent no. 6 at the time of hearing.

¶16

It is made clear that the entire process as indicated in the foregoing paragraph is to be completed within 90 working days from the date of communication of the server copy of this order.

¶17

Liberty is given to the learned advocate on record to the writ petitioner to communicate the server copy of this order to the respondent no. 6.

¶18

The respondent no. 6 is hereby directed to act on the server copy of this order.

¶19

¶20

It is further directed that in the event, the respondent no. 6 finds that there is sufficient merit in the representation dated 27.01.2025 of the writ petitioner, the respondent no. 6 is further directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶21

¶22

With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition being WPA 7352 of 2025 is disposed of.

¶23

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

¶24

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)

Sk. Abdul Hannan v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk. Abdul Hannan v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surath Chandra Das and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Gopal Chandra Mukherjee and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Timir Kumar Roy Chowdhury and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sri Rabindra Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kartikeya Mukhopadhyay Achi Parishad Trust Represented by Its Secretary Ashutosh Mukherjee Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Anamula Hak Seikh @ Sk. Anamul Hak and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.