Ashok Kumar Routh and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities, more specifically against the respondent no. 4 for taking appropriate steps for initiation of appropriate acquisition proceeding and for disbursement of adequate amount of compensation for utilizing the petitioners’ land measuring about 40 decimals of land in Plot Nos. 1053 and 1059 at Mouza – Nandigram, Purba Medinipur.

¶11

At the time of hearing, Mr. Dasgupta, learned advocate for the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to Page Nos. 25 to 42 of the instant writ petition being copies of several letters as have been written by the writ petitioners addressed to the respondents/authorities requesting them to take appropriate steps for disbursement of adequate compensation on account of utilization of excess area of land belonging to the writ petitioners which according

¶12

2

¶13

to the writ petitioners have not been acquired by way of acquisition.

¶14

It is submitted by Mr. Dasgupta that admittedly out of 0.73 decimal of land in the aforementioned two plots of land only 9 decimal of land was acquired in the year 1973-74 and in respect of the remaining unacquired land, the writ petitioners are still in possession of 40 decimal of land. It is submitted that though the respondents/authorities have utilized a substantial portion of the said 40 decimal of land in the aforementioned two plots, appropriate relief/reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioners in terms of the prayers made in the instant writ petition.

¶15

Per contra, Mr. Dhar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State and its functionaries at the very outset draws attention of this Court to Page No. 25 of the report as submitted by him today being a copy of notice dated 27.04.1992 as published by the competent authority in connection with L.A. Case No. Midnapore – 31 –LA (II)/Spl. /I & W. It is submitted that from the said notice, it would reveal that in Mouza – Nandigram, R.S. Plot Nos. 1053 and 1059 were acquired in full.

¶16

At this juncture, Mr. Dhar again draws attention of this Court to Page No. 26 of the report as submitted today. It is submitted that from the copy of the plot index as has been annexed in the page no. 26 of the said report, it would reveal that in respect of the aforementioned

¶17

3

¶18

two plots, the entire plot measuring about 0.76 and 0.73 decimals were acquired under the said acquisition proceeding and from the Page No. 15 of the said report, it would reveal that in connection with the said land acquisition proceeding, adequate compensation was disbursed to the writ petitioners on 10.11.2010 for acquiring the entire plot nos. 1053 and 1059 in the said Mouza.

¶19

Upon careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court, this Court finds sufficient justification in the submission of Mr. Dhar inasmuch as sufficient materials have been placed before this Court that under the aforementioned LA proceeding, the entire plot nos. 1053 and 1059 have been acquired after observing all the formalities and in view of such, this Court finds that the writ petitioners’ allegation that the respondent/authorities are using more than the acquired area in the aforementioned two plots is baseless.

¶20

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

¶21

Accordingly, the instant writ petition being WPA 7412 of 2025 is dismissed.

¶22

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

¶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.)

Ashok Kumar Routh and Ors. v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Routh and Ors. v. the State of West Bengal 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

Karan Singh Vs U.O.I.

Society for Welfare of the Handicapped Person & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sabina Yesmin Begum Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Minati Maity and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Lante Mandal and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Pratapaditya Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.