LI Network
Published on: January 3, 2024 at 21:31 IST
The Calcutta High Court emphasized the significance of respecting citizens’ constitutional right to property, as stipulated in Article 300A of the Indian Constitution.
Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, in a single-bench ruling, directed the state authorities to compensate ₹2 lakhs in damages for wrongfully evicting the plaintiffs from the property in 2000. The court also instructed the restoration of the plaintiffs’ possession within 90 days.
The Court highlighted the illegal nature of the State’s actions in evicting the plaintiffs during the legal proceedings, stating that the State’s duty was to protect citizens’ property rights.
Consequently, the State incurred an obligation to compensate for the illegal possession of the property from May 1, 2000, until its restoration.
This ruling stemmed from a second appeal initiated by the State, contesting a district judge’s order demanding restitution of possession to the plaintiffs and the payment of damages.
The plaintiffs asserted that their mother’s name was listed in the Record of Rights (ROR) after the Land Reforms operation, while the RS ROR was in the name of Azizur Rahaman Khan. Following their mother’s demise in 1987, the plaintiffs claimed legal ownership of the property as her heirs, acknowledged by the State.
However, in 1999, the State suddenly issued a notice asserting ownership of the property and accused the plaintiffs of illegal occupation of public land. During the pending lawsuit, the State, assisted by the police, forcefully dispossessed the plaintiffs.
The State argued that the suit was not maintainable due to Section 8A of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962, and that the civil court lacked jurisdiction since it was vested in the Collector.
The Court found that the State’s actions were unjust, sending a threatening eviction notice to the occupants without making efforts to release the property or challenge previous orders that supported the plaintiffs’ case.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, directing the State to restore possession of the property to the plaintiffs and awarding damages.
