Kinkori Bhunia v. Union Of India And ORS.

01-09-2025 Item No.32 Subrata Bhattacharyya IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side AR(C) WPA No.11547 of 2024 Kinkori Bhunia -vsUnion of India & Ors.

Mr. Tanmay Chowdhury Ms. Sulagna Sarkar ...for the petitioner Mr. Samitendra Narayan Dutta Mr. Garima Raijada ...for the Union of India Mr. Tamal Taru Panda ...for the private respondent 1.

The petitioner submits that the railway authority acquired certain plots of land of which the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was also a co-owner. The private respondent was found to be the land loser and compensation amount was paid to the land loser. The private respondent accepted the said compensation.

2.

The petitioner submits that the authority assured for a job which was never given either to the land loser or to the petitioner's father who was the coowner of the land. Prayer has been made to direct the railways for providing job to the petitioner.

3.

Learned counsel for the private respondent admits acceptance of compensation amount on account of acquisition of land. It has been submitted that the private respondent, however, does not have any objection if job is provided to the petitioner.

4.

Learned counsel for the railways submits, upon instructions that, no assurance of job was given to any of the parties from whom land was acquired. On the acquisition of the land, compensation has been provided and the same has been accepted by the land loser. At this stage, the prayer for providing job cannot be accepted.

5.

Upon hearing to the parties it appears that, admittedly, the compensation was given to the private respondent in whose favour the land loser certificate was issued by the authority. There is nothing on record to suggest that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was assured any job.

6.

It appears that after acceptance of compensation amount by the land loser, the petitioner has come up with a prayer for providing job. The relief sought for cannot be allowed. The respondents have closed the issue of acquisition nearly ten years back.

7.

The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 8.

All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

9.

Certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties.

[Amrita Sinha, J]