Compensation Cannot Be Withheld for Specific Plots When Awarded for Other Plots in Identical Land Schedule

The petitioner is the recorded owner of Plot No. 453 (1.95 acres) in Mouza Kanchanpur, Murshidabad

Following proceedings under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, the petitioner was permitted to retain several plots, including Plot No. 453

Subsequently, the state initiated acquisition proceedings (APP Case No. 155/02-03) for these lands. While the petitioner received compensation for other retained plots (Nos. 143, 417, and 366), the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) refused to release compensation for Plot No. 453 via memos dated September 20, 2007, and February 15, 2008

The SLAO cited a pending Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 1416 of 1997) as the reason for non-payment

Additionally, the petitioner claimed crop compensation based on an agreement dated December 31, 2007

1. Whether the respondent authorities were justified in withholding land acquisition compensation for Plot No. 453 on the grounds of pending litigation, despite releasing compensation for other plots within the same retained land schedule

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to crop loss compensation for Plot No. 453 under the terms of the agreement dated December 31, 2007

The court applied the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically Section 12(2) regarding the service of notice of an award

It also referenced the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (Sections 14T, 14M, 14N, 14P, and 14S) concerning the legal status of "retained land"

Furthermore, the court applied the principles of Indian Contract law to interpret the specific terms and schedules of the crop compensation agreement

Regarding Issue 1, the Court observed that Plot No. 453 was part of the same "retained land" schedule as Plot Nos. 143, 417, and 366, for which the authorities had already processed and paid compensation

Consequently, the Court found the respondent's argument—that compensation was withheld due to a pending SLP—to be inconsistent and legally unsustainable when other similarly situated plots had been cleared

Regarding Issue 2, the Court examined the agreement dated December 31, 2007. It noted that the agreement only covered plots where possession was delivered immediately pending acquisition

Since Plot No. 453 was not listed in the schedule of the agreement (Annexure A) and the petitioner failed to prove delivery of possession for that specific plot, the Court determined the claim for crop compensation was a breach of the contractual terms

The Court set aside the SLAO memos dated September 20, 2007, and February 15, 2008. The Collector and SLAO (Respondents 5 & 6) were directed to disburse the compensation and associated statutory amounts for Plot No. 453 to the petitioner within six weeks