Arijit Kundu Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Arijit Kundu Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of by direction to respondent no.5, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Purba Bardhaman, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27 January 2026 and dispose of it by a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorized representative, communicate the reasoned order immediately thereafter, and complete the entire exercise positively within six weeks from receipt of a server copy of the order along with a copy of the representation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's property (Dag No. 74, Mouza Alisa, JL No. 44, Police Station Burdwan Sadar, District Purba Bardhaman) has been utilized for a public purpose without payment of compensation. +2 more

Court's answer

Since the petitioner had submitted a representation ventilating his grievance, the interest of justice would be sub-served if the concerned respondent authority is directed to consider the representation and dispose of it by passing a reasoned order within a specific time frame.

Ratio / Principle

Without entering into the merits of the claim in the representation dated 27 January 2026, the writ petition stands disposed of by directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Purba Bardhaman (respondent no.5) to consider the representation.

Key takeaways

The Special Land Acquisition Officer is to dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorized representative, and to communicate the reasoned order to the petitioner immediately thereafter.ratio¶11
The entire exercise shall be completed by the said respondent as expeditiously as possible but positively within six weeks from receipt of a server copy of the order along with a copy of the representation dated 27 January 2026.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPA 10079 of 2026, decided 08-06-2026) in which the petitioner alleged that his property, Dag No. 74 under Mouza Alisa, JL No. 44, Police Station Burdwan Sadar, District Purba Bardhaman, had been utilized for a public purpose without payment of compensation, and that a representation dated 27 January 2026 addressed to various authorities including the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Purba Bardhaman had remained undecided. State counsel noted the acquisition proceeding appeared to have been initiated in 1999 and the petition was belated. Without entering into the merits, the bench of Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. disposed of the petition, directing respondent no.5, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Purba Bardhaman, to consider the representation and pass a reasoned order after affording the petitioner or its authorized representative an opportunity of hearing, to communicate the order immediately thereafter, and to complete the exercise positively within six weeks of receiving a server copy of the order with a copy of the representation. The questions whether the 1999 acquisition was taken to its logical end and whether the State can deprive a citizen of property without due process of law were flagged but not adjudicated.

Item08-06-2026 WPA 10079 of 2026 A-19. Arijit Kundu Ct. 19 Versus sg The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Kingsuk Mondal Sk. Omar Sharif Mr. Suman Das …for the petitioner Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee Mr. Dibasish Basu Mr. Rhitam Chatterjee ..for the State

The petitioner alleges that the property of the petitioner being Dag No. 74, under Mouza Alisa, JL No. 44, within Police Station Burdwan Sadar, in the District of Purba Bardhaman, has been utilized for a public purpose but no compensation has been paid to the petitioner till date.

The petitioner claims to have submitted a representation before various authorities including the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Purba Bardhaman by a letter dated 27^th January, 2026.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that no decision on such representation has been communicated to the petitioner till date.

Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Standing Counsel appears along with his junior and submits that though the land acquisition proceeding appears to have been initiated sometime in the year 1999, as would be evident from the said representation, the petitioner has approached this Court at a belated state.

However, the question arises whether the acquisition proceeding that was initiated sometime in the year 1999 was taken to its logical end. The larger issue would be whether the

2

State can deprive a citizen from its property without following due process of law.

Since the representation has been submitted by the petitioner ventilating his grievance, this Court feels that interest of justice would be sub-served if the concerned respondent authority is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within a specific time frame.

Without entering into the merits of the claim made by the writ petitioner in the representation dated 27^th January, 2026, the writ petition stands disposed of by directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Purba Bardhaman, being the respondent no.5 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27^th January, 2026 and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorized representative and communicate the reasoned order to the petitioner immediately thereafter. The entire exercise shall be completed by the said respondent as expeditiously as possible but positively within a period of six weeks from the receipt of a server copy of this order along with a copy of the representation dated 27^th January, 2026.

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

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)