Kartik Kumar Jana v. The District Magistrate Paschim Medinipur And ORS

jdt. 09.02.2024 jb.

W.P.A. 19056 of 2023 (Kartik Kumar Jana vs. The District Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur & Ors.) Mr. Biswajit Konar Mr. Arijit Mahinder .... For the Petitioner Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay Mr. Priyabrata Batabyal .... For the State Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record The petitioner claims to be co-owner of the plot in question comprising 6.75 decimals by virtue of purchase vide deed of conveyance on 5th January, 2016. Sometime in 2021 the petitioner learnt that plot in question was acquired vide L.A. case No. 10 of 1956. On enquiry, the petitioner found that no compensation was paid to the vendors of the petitioner, far less to the petitioner. The petitioner seeks to submit a comprehensive representation before the concerned authority in this regard and prays for a direction upon the authority to consider the representation at the earliest. Learned counsel for the State respondents submits that the 3rd respondent be directed to consider the representation in accordance with law.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation ventilating his grievance before the 3rd respondent within two weeks from date. The 3rd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation within six weeks from the date of receipt thereof

upon affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioner, in accordance with law. The decision taken by the authority shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereof.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Since no affidavit has been invited, allegations contained in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)