Achyutnanda Mishra & Ors vs The State of West Bengal & Ors on 17 June 2015
The request in writ No. 494 (W) of 2003 was initially filed by Achyutnanda Mishra and his mother Shyama Sundari Mishra in prayer including the request (f) by a temporary order to prohibit respondents from constructing any property for any other reason or move it to alienate the land in disputes. An interim order was passed and then extended as regards prayer (f). In opposition to the written application, state respondents No. 1, 4, and 7 filed their affidavit on 28.4.2003 in opposition to the matter.
On 7.5.2003, the petitioners submitted an affidavit in reply. The petitioners submitted a disgrace application for the 2004 W.P.C.R.C. No. 6222 (W), rejected as infructuous on 12 September 2012 in respect of the written application in pendency.
C.A.N. 3199 of 2007 was filed on the grounds of petitioner No. 2 Shyama Sundari Mishra’s death and said that her prayer was approved as an addition to the parties of lawyers representing on 22.8.2007. C.A.N. 3199 of 2007 was filed on the grounds of petitioner No. 2 Shyama Sundari Mishra’s death and said that her prayer was approved as an addition to the parties of lawyers representing on 22.8.2007. The parties to the lawyer’s representatives were accepted on account of her death, C.A.N. 3199 of 2007; and the prayer was restored on 22 August 2007. This writ application No. 494 (W) of 2003 along with C.A.N. 3621 of 2012 was passed in the order dated 4.4.2014.
Accordingly, In the presence of learned counsel on both sides, the two concerns were heard. It should be pointed out that on 4.4.2012, petitioners filed the C.A.N. 3621 of 2012 for the respondents to declare a prize for the property acquired upon initiation of the fresh procedure according to the Land Acquisition Act 1894 or to abandon the excess land for acquisition and to re-acquire possession of the 29-cottah (21000 sq.ft.) lands, in plot No. 3533 of Mouja.
In the instant, the petitioners stated the leasing of 21,000 square ft. by Executive Engineer P.W.D. Land in favour of petitioner No. 1 from requisitioned land in this case against his Rs.4200 payment.
P-1 has been annexed to their formal request to endorse their conflict. In the opinion of the judge, it is not necessary to characterise the assertion made by the petitioners as a lease but can instead be claimed in these documents that it is purely a permit. No right and title claims were issued by such a licence to the property in question to petitioner no. 1 after the confinement of property free of any burden in the State.
Taking account of all the aspects in this case and of the evidence of the fact that, under Section 11 of the land acquisition Act, the State respondent has prepared the award for compensation to the persons involved in these matters as it appears to be legitimate in the circumstances of the publication of the Notice under Section 4 (1)(a) of Act-II of 1948. The Act-II of 1948 on 24.5-1996, and no extension of Act-I of 1948 after 31.3.1997 and the adoption of Article 9 (3) by the West Bengal Amendment Act of 1997.
Moreover, according to the final judgment without any order of expense, 494 (W) from 2003 and C.A.N. 3621 from 2012 were dismissed.
The state respondent shall disclose the award in respect of the lands in question and shall, within two months of this date, pay compensation for interest in compliance with the law, the state respondent will be liable for paying one percent more interest on the amount awarded, effective from 24 May 2006 until the date of payment.