Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)Smt. Kumari Devi Chauhan & Ors vs The State Of W.B. & Ors on 10 March, 2008Author:Jayanta Kumar BiswasBench:Jayanta Kumar BiswasIn the High Court at Calcutta
                           Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                    Appellate Side

Before:
The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas


                                 W.P. No.6599 (W) of 2007

                              Smt. Kumari Devi Chauhan & Ors.
                                               v.
                                   The State of W.B. & Ors.


Mr Saumya Bandyopadhyay,
                                         advocate for the petitioner.

Mr Sitaram Samanta,
                                         advocate for the state.

Mr Partha Sarathi Basu
Mr Subhabrata Das,
                                         advocates for the second respondent.Heard on: March 10th, 2008.Judgment on: March 10th, 2008.Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - The petitioners are seeking a mandamus directing the
respondents to rescind the award dated February 26th, 2007 made in the land acquisition
proceedings.Counsel submits that the compensation determined by the collector was too meagre, and
hence a mandamus should be issued directing the collector to redetermine the compensation
 keeping in view the provision ofs.23of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The question is whether
the petitioners can seek such a relief from the writ court.The petitioners claim that as bargadars they were cultivating the lands for acquisition
whereof proceedings were initiated by the collector under the provisions of theLand Acquisition
Act, 1894; and that they are some of the persons in whose favour the award was made. Their
remedy, if any, was only unders.18of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.               Questioning the
sufficiency of the amount of compensation determined by the collector, they are not entitled to
approach the writ court. Hence they are not entitled to get a mandamus as prayed for.Counsel submits that liberty may be given to the petitioners to files.18applications. No
liberty was ever necessary. The petitioners had right to submits.18applications within the period
mentioned ins.18of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They did not make applications. Today they
propose to file applications which are clearly barred by limitation. There is no provision for
condoning the delay. Only because they are poor persons, and ignorant of the provision of law, as
submitted by counsel, I cannot make an order contrary to the provisions ofs.18. Counsel invites
me to exercise my inherent power. There is no scope for that. I cannot condone the delay. Hence
there is no question of making any order regarding any proposeds.18applications.For these reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order for costs.Urgent certified xerox copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties, if applied for,
within three days from the date of receipt of the file by the section concerned.(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)