WPA/25475/2024 of MONORANJAN BHADRA AND ORS. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 17 September 2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking, inter alia, a direction upon respondent no. 3 to consider the petitioners’ claim for grant of compensation and other benefits in terms of the relevant provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, the ‘2013 Act’).

2. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that, for reconstruction of the Aila- affected embankment in the Sundarban area under South 24 Parganas, a chunk of land admeasuring 79.03 acres was acquired from Mouza-Sitarampur, J.L. No. 213, appertaining to L.R. Plot Nos. 259, 561, 562, 563 and 564,and certain other plots of land under L.A. Case No. 4/6 of 2012-13. He submits that the petitioners are members of the affected family in respect of the said acquisition and that the earnings from those plots of land were their only source of livelihood. Referring to a list of occupiers or affected persons, he submits that the status of the petitioners has been recognized by the respondent. He submits that all the procedures relating to the said acquisition proceedings have been completed and possession of the said land has also been taken by the concerned respondent. However, no benefit under the 2013 Act has been extended in favour of the petitioners. In such circumstances, the petitioners submitted separate representations before respondent no.

3. However, despite such representations and/or applications from the petitioners, no effective steps have been taken. Aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the concerned respondent, the petitioners have been constrained to prefer the present writ petition. He submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if the matter is relegated to respondent no. 3 with a direction to consider the grievances raised by the petitioners in their respective applications.

3. Mr. Bhunia, learned Advocate appearing for the State, submits that it is to be ascertained whether the present petitioners can be stated to be affected persons or can be considered as beneficiaries within the meaning of the 2013 Act. However, he submits that if the matter is remitted to the respondent with a direction to consider the petitioners’ applications, he would have no objection.

4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, particularly having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent no. 3 to consider and dispose of the petitioners’ representation dated 31st July, 2024, upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other interested parties, if any.

5. Upon such consideration, if respondent no. 3 finds substance in the petitioners’ grievances, he shall take consequential steps in accordance with law. In the event the claim of the petitioners is found to be without substance, respondent no. 3 shall pass a reasoned order in that regard and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioners forthwith. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. It is clarified that I have not gone into the merits of the petitioners’ claim as raised in the application and in the writ petition, and all points are kept open to be decided by respondent no. 3 while considering the petitioners’ application.

7. This order shall not be construed as creating any equity in favour of the petitioners in the event their applications are rejected by respondent no. 3.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)