Sohan Lall v. The Lieutenant Governor And Others

IN THE HIGH COUR AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

MA/23/2021 IA No.CAN/1/2021 Sohan Lall ... Appellant Vs.

The Lieutenant Governor and others ... Respondents Ms. G.Mini, Advocate ... for the appellant Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, Advocate ... for the respondents November 16, 2021 [GNC] Item No.7 Since the main appeal itself being decided, the Court is inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. CAN/1/2021 stands allowed and disposed of.

The facts of the case, inter alia, are that in the year 1997, the Andaman and Nicobar Administration proposed to acquire land in villages Garacharma and Prothrapur. Notices were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on October 08, 1997. Thereafter notices under section 6 of the said Act were also issued and a final award was passed by the Collector on 31st March, 1997. It further transpires from the record that the compensation was paid and received by the writ petitioner/appellant.

The land was stated to have been required for the purpose of dumping soil that was excavated at the site of construction of the Airport at Port Blair.

Twofold grounds were urged in challenge to the said proceedings, before the learned Single Judge. Firstly, that the possession was not taken by the acquiring authority and hence the acquisition was not completed and secondly that lands similarly acquired in neighbouring villages were returned back to the land losers since the purpose for which the acquisition was made no longer in existence.

The learned Single Bench held that the factum of possession not having been taken has not been urged in the writ petition. It was also found that since the compensation has already been received by the writ petitioner/appellant, the question of land being returned back to the petitioner cannot and does not arise.

Counsel for the appellant would argue before this Court that the petitioner at paragraph 5 of the writ petition had specifically urged that the possession of the land was not taken by the respondents.

This Court notes that there is presumption of possession having been taken by the respondents in the facts of the case.

It is now well settled that the possession under the Land Acquisition Act can be taken in many ways. One such way is a formal entering upon the land by the Collector or his representative. The other ways are by actual physical possession or demarcation and/or beating up drums etc.

In the instant case, this Court is of the view that the claim by the writ petitioner that they still have the possession of the property, cannot be sustained. The petitioners were in illegal possession of the property since after conclusion of the proceeding and receipt of compensation.

It further appears that in the last few lines of paragraph 16 at page 7 of the judgment, the learned Single Bench has found that taking over of the possession by the respondents has been acknowledged by the writ petitioner/appellant. The petitioners have also not been able to demonstrate any precedent or reason that they should be treated similar to those land losers in the neighbouring villages who were allegedly restored possession after acquisition was cancelled. The case of the other land losers is not before this Court. The petitioner cannot seek any benefit or claim any such concession that has been given to allegedly similarly placed land losers in the neighbouring villages. No similarity has been shown to Court with those persons.

In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Interim order, if any, shall stands vacated. There shall however be no order as to costs.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J. ) (Amrita Sinha, J. )