Calcutta High Court Asks Authority To Consider Land Owners’ Grievance
In a case the place the writ petitioners had been disadvantaged from their entitlement of job on account of acquisition of their land, the Calcutta Excessive Courtroom has noticed that Proper to Honest Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applies to Public Non-public Partnership fashions. The Excessive Courtroom has additionally requested the competent authority to look into the grievance of the aggrieved homeowners.
The Writ Petitioners had approached the Excessive Courtroom searching for issuance of acceptable writ in opposition to the respondents/authorities for quashing the orders whereby and whereunder the writ petitioners’ declare for having a job in lieu of acquired land had been turned down.
The Single Bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Sen mentioned, “On perusal of Part 2(2) of the Act 30 of 2013, it reveals that Act 30 of 2013 applies in case of acquisition of land for Public Non-public Partnership (PPP) venture.”
“…this Courtroom directs the respondent no. 2/authority to think about the entitlement of the writ petitioners afresh in phrases of the supply of Part 31 learn with serial no. 4 of the 2nd schedule of the Act 30 of 2013 and after giving a possibility of listening to to the writ petitioners and/or his/their licensed consultant(s) in addition to the respondent no. 11 and/or its licensed consultant shall move reasoned orders…”, it ordered.
Advocate Ujjal Ray represented the Petitioners whereas AGP Chadi Charan De represented the Respondent.
Reasoning
Referring to the provisions of the Proper to Honest Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Bench famous that the mentioned Act was introduced into pressure with impact from January 1,2014 and mentioned, “…thus seems to this courtroom that whereas enacting Act 30 of 2013, the legislatures have put stress not solely on truthful 15 compensation but additionally in case of transparency in rehabilitation and resettlement on account of land acquisition.”
“The item of Act 30 of 2013 is just not just for dedication and disbursement of compensation but additionally for rehabilitation and resettlement of the land losers”, it added.
The Bench was of the view that the Act 30 of 2013 applies in case of acquisition of land for Public Non-public Partnership (PPP) venture. The stretch of land, within the on the spot case, had been acquired on Public Non-public Partnership (PPP) mannequin. It was additional observed that the stand of the respondent authority was that the venture for which land of the writ petitioner was acquired didn’t generate any employment. Nonetheless, the writ petitioner had approached the courtroom not on account of inadequacy of compensation however on account of refusal by the respondent to rehabilitate and resettle him in phrases of the supply of the 2013 Act.
The Bench additional talked about that Clause (a) of Column no. 3 of Serial no. 4 offers with association for a job within the related venture to not less than one member per affected household, Clause (b) of the identical serial offers for onetime cost of Rs. 5 lakhs per affected household and Clause (c) of the self-same serial offers for cost of Rs. 2,000 monthly per household for 20 years with acceptable indexation to the patron value index for agricultural labors.
“This Courtroom has meticulously gone by means of the provision of serial no. 4 of the second schedule of Act 30 of 2013 which clearly signifies the legislative mandate that the suitable authorities shall make sure the affected households are supplied with the three choices as talked about underneath Clauses (a), (b) and (c) in column no. 3 i.e., underneath the column Entitlement/Provision. It additional seems to this Courtroom that within the occasion, reduction (a) can’t be granted, the affected households are to be supplied with the choices as talked about in Clauses (b) and (c) of the column no. 3 i.e., one-time cost or annuity insurance policies”, it held.
“At this juncture, if I look to the order dated 28.09.2022 as handed by the respondent no. 2/authority, it reveals that the respondent no. 2/authority had failed to visualise the true spirit of Part 31 of Act 30 of 2013 learn with the supply of serial no. 4 of the second schedule of Act 30 of 2013”, it mentioned whereas permitting the Petition and setting apart the impugned Order.
The Bench concluded the matter by directing the respondent authority to think about the entitlement of the writ petitioners afresh by way of the supply of Part 31 learn with serial no. 4 of the 2nd schedule of the 2013 Act and after giving a possibility of listening to to the writ petitioners.
Trigger Title: Hemanta Kumar Das v. Union of India & Ors. (Case No.: WPA 4846 of 2023)
Look
Petitioners: Advocate Ujjal Ray
Respondents: AGP Chadi Charan De, Advocates Anirban Sarkar, Soumitra Bandyapadhyay, Subhasish Bandyapadhyay, Rini Bhattacharyya
