Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Renubala Maity & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
WPA 22952 of 2022
Renubala Maity & Ors.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sudeep Sanyal, ld. Sr. Adv.
: Mr. Snehasis Jana
: Ms. Ketaki Ghosh
For the State : Mr. Soumitra Bandopadhyay
: Mr. Subhasis Bandopadhyay
Heard on : 24.02.2026
Judgment on : 24.02.2026
Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-
1. An order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Paschim
Medinipur/ respondent No. 3 dated August 3, 2022 is under
challenge in the instant writ petition. The dispute is related with
alleged non-payment and refusal of interest, along with the
amount of compensation paid to the present petitioner pursuant
to the Award passed in LA Case No. 07/2006-07.
2. The related background fact in a nutshell is that, vide an order
dated April 19, 1984 in case No. 239 of 1984 under Section 7A
of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, land of Satish Chandra
Sauth stood vested with the Government. The matter entered
Page 2 of 9
into litigation. An order dated March 25, 2008 the West Bengal
Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in OA No. 782 of 2008
directed to Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kharagpur-1
to reopen the vesting case and dispose of the same by
determining the question of quantum of land under irrigation
and thus, not under irrigation.
3. The BL & LRO, Kharagpur-1 passed its order dated March 28,
2010 that, 4.87 Acres of land has to be divested.
4. Some amount of land of the petitioner measuring more or less 4
Acres, situated in Mouja – Rupnarayanpur was acquired by the
West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation in LA Case No.
07/2006-07. Immediately, after passing the order of divesting
the BL & LRO, Kharagpur-1 reversed its own earlier order of
divesting of the land. He passed an order dated July 08, 2010
that 8.54 Acres of the petitioner’s land had vested with the
Government owing to the acquisition proceeding and the
petitioner would be entitled to retain the rest 10.97 Acres of
land. Such order of BL & LRO dated July 08, 2010 was
challenged in LR Appeal No. 39 (LR/2010). The District Land
and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Medinipur, by dint of his
order dated September 04, 2014 had quashed the said order of
BL & LRO dated July 08, 2010. In appeal, the earlier order
dated March 18, 2010 was upheld by the District Land and
Land Reforms Officer and directions were also made for
rectification of records.
5. Apart from all these Court cases, the petitioner has also filed her
representation before the Land Acquisition Collector, Paschim
Medinipur dated November 02, 2010 requesting to disburse the
compensation.
Page 3 of 9
6. Having failed to receive the compensation, the petitioner moved
a writ application being WP No. 13976 (W) of 2015 before the
High Court. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order
dated July 16, 2015 by the Court, directing the petitioners to
approach the concerned Land Acquisition Collector in
accordance with law, whereupon the Land Acquisition Collector
will ascertain whether the petitioners are entitled to receive the
compensation or not.
7. Owing to the non-compliance of the said order of the Court, a
contempt proceeding was initiated being CPAN No. 38 of 2016 in
connection with the said writ petition. During the contempt
proceeding, the petitioners have been paid the awarded amount
of compensation on April 18, 2016. The contempt application
was disposed of vide order dated May 06, 2016 granting liberty
to the petitioners to institute appropriate proceeding for recovery
of interest in accordance with law.
8. The second writ petition was filed by the present petitioners,
that is the WP No. 19638 (W) of 2016 claiming interest on the
amount of compensation paid. The same was relegated by dint
of the Court’s order dated June 27, 2022 to the Special Land
Acquisition Officer to consider the prayer of the petitioners for
grant of interest over the amount of compensation paid. The
resultant order is that dated August 03, 2022 which is
impugned in the instant case.
9. On a careful perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the
said respondent/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Paschim
Medinipur has held that since the initiation of the LA Case No.
07/2006-07 till the date of declaration of Award on June 20,
2007, the concerned land was recorded in the Collctor’s
Khatian. It has further been found that the delay in payment of
Page 4 of 9
compensation was not attributable to the said respondent but
due to the pendency of the litigation particularly, before Block
Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kharagpur-1, District Land and
Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Medinipur, Land Reforms and
Tenancy Tribunal etc. Further it has been noted that, record
was corrected in favour of the petitioners only after 2015 and
from 2006 to 2015, no record of the petitioners as to the
concerned land could be found. Hence, the said Authority has
found that, responsibility cannot be cast upon the Authority for
delayed payment of compensation. Hence, it was decided that,
no interest into the amount of compensation was payable over
and above the amount of compensation.
10. Mr. Sudeep Sanyal, learned senior advocate appearing for the
petitioners does not dispute the fact that, several litigations
have been fought before the amount of compensation was
ultimately handed over to the petitioner on April 18, 2016 vide
this Court’s order. However, he refers to the relevant document
to submit further that, since from 2008, the respondent
Authority gathered knowledge about the petitioner’s claim as to
the concerned piece of land. He submits on the basis of the
records that, in 2008, the petitioners have been called for
hearing in the office of the concerned respondent and since
thereafter, the respondent has been aware of each and every
order of the respective authorities passed with regard to the
petitioner’s claim of the concerned land like the order of
divesting the land, quashing of the said order in appeal the
order of the Tribunal as well as this Court as discussed above.
11. Nevertheless, with his usual fairness and conviction, Mr.
Sanyal, learned senior advocate for the petitioners has accepted
that, at the time of initiation of the LA Case as mentioned above,
the petitioners’ names were not recorded in the record of rights
Page 5 of 9
of the property concerned. He submits that the petitioners’ land
was finally stood vested with the State vide the order of the
District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim Medinipur
dated July 08, 2010 and from that date, the petitioner should be
considered as eligible for grant of interest over the compensation
amount.
12. Mr. Sanyal, learned senior advocate has submitted further that,
it is the settled principles of law that, action of the court can
never prejudice anybody. Considering the same, the ground
relied on by the respondent/Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Paschim Medinipur in his order dated August 03, 2022 should
stand as unsustainable and quashed, he says. He further
submits that the claim of the petitioner for statutory interest at
least from the period 2010 till the date of grant of compensation
that is, April 18, 2016 and thereafter, till the date of actual
payment of interest, may be allowed by this Court in the instant
writ petition.
13. On behalf of the State respondent, there is strong objection
raised by Mr. Soumitra Bandopadhyay, learned advocate
defending the State. It is emphatically submitted that the
petitioner would not be entitled for any benefit for the period
when the land was admittedly not recorded in their names but
in the name of the Collector. It is further submitted that, for
recovery of money in the form of interest on compensation
amount as claimed by the petitioner is amenable to jurisdiction
of a Civil Court and not the Writ Court exercising extraordinary
jurisdiction under provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. So far as the other writ petitions filed earlier by the
present petitioners are concerned, according to Mr.
Bandopadhyay, neither the Block Land and Land Reforms
Officer nor the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Paschim
Page 6 of 9
Medinipur were parties thereto, hence, the petitioners are not
free to take the plea of pendency of the proceeding before those
offices at the relevant point of time. For the reasons as above,
according to the State respondent, the instant writ petition is
not to be maintained and is liable to be dismissed.
14. Considering the nature and dispute in the instant case, the
Court finds it necessary to look into the provision under Section
34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is as below:-
“34. Payment of interest.–When the amount of such
compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking
possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount
awarded with interest thereon at the rate of [nine per
centum] per annum from the time of so taking possession
until it shall have been so paid or deposited :
[Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is
not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the
date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of
fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date
of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of
compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or
deposited before the date of such expiry.]”
15. Therefore, interest on the delayed payment of compensation is a
statutory provision and right advanced by the legislature to the
land loser which is not dependent on exercise of any discretion
by the respective assessing or disbursing authorities.
16. Interest under Section 34 accrues from dispossession/delayed
payment of compensation. The statute has not specified as to
the reasons of delay for which the interest in accordance with its
terms, may or may not be payable. The Courts have time and
again held that, in case of any delay attributable to the
claimant, interest for that period may be withheld. Exercising
the same, there is no other reason recognized in law, not to
Page 7 of 9
provide statutory interest to the claimant/petitioner here, since
there has been delay in payment of interest.
17. The entitlement to statutory interest is generally mandatory and
compensatory in nature. Delay caused by litigation does not
extinguish the land owner’s right to statutory interest, especially
when the land owner has been dispossessed and compensation
has not been paid or validly deposited – as it is in the instant
case. The reason being that, the property has already been
possessed over and the owner having already lost usage thereof
as well as not received the compensation therefor. Statutory
interest flows from the statute, it is mostly automatic and
mandatory. Statutory interest cannot generally be denied on
equitable grounds.
18. In the judgment Union of India Vs. Pushpavathi reported in
(2018) 3 SCC 28, the Supreme Court has held –
“A dispute relating to non-award of interest payable to the
landowners under Section 28 or/and Section 34 of the Act is
not specified under Section 18 and hence it is not capable of
being referred by the Collector to the civil court under
Section 18 of the Act. It is also for the reason that payment
of interest is statutory in character and being statutory, it is
mandatory for payment once conditions specified under
Sections 28 or/and 34 are fulfilled.”
19. In the judgment Delhi Development Authority Vs. Sukhbir
Singh reported in (2016) 16 SCC 258, it has been held that –
“15. After setting out Section 24(2), the Court went on to
hold: [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183
15. Simply put, Section 31 of the 1894 Act makes provision
for payment of compensation or deposit of the same in the
court. This provision requires that the Collector should
Page 8 of 9tender payment of compensation as awarded by him to the
persons interested who are entitled to compensation. If due
to happening of any contingency as contemplated in
Section 31(2), the compensation has not been paid, the
Collector should deposit the amount of compensation in the
court to which reference can be made under Section 18.
16. The mandatory nature of the provision in Section 31(2)
with regard to deposit of the compensation in the court is
further fortified by the provisions contained in Sections 32,
33 and 34. As a matter of fact, Section 33 gives power to
the court, on an application by a person interested or
claiming an interest in such money, to pass an order to
invest the amount so deposited in such Government or
other approved securities and may direct the interest or
other proceeds of any such investment to be accumulated
and paid in such manner as it may consider proper so that
the parties interested therein may have the benefit
therefrom as they might have had from the land in respect
whereof such money shall have been deposited or as near
thereto as may be.”
20. The reason for declining grant of such statutory benefit to the
present petitioners as has been noted in the impugned order is
due to pendency of the cases before different fora which caused
lapse of sufficient time. Nevertheless, in finding as above, the
respondent authority has failed to take into consideration the
well-settled doctrine of law that, action of Court prejudices
none.
21. On the basis of the discussions as made above, the order of the
Land Acquisition Officer, Paschim Medinipur dated August 03,
2022 as impugned in the instant writ petition stands to be not
in conformity with the statutory provision as also the settled
principles of law. Hence, devoid of being in due conformity with
the law and the settled principles thereof, the said order stands
liable to be set aside.
Page 9 of 9
22. For the reasons as above, the impugned order dated August 03,
2022 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Paschim
Medinipur is hereby set aside.
23. The Court finds it proper to direct that the writ petitioner is
entitled to be granted with the statutory interest on the amount
of compensation with effect from July, 2010, till the date of
actual payment of such interest.
24. Therefore, this writ petition is remanded back to the Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Paschim Medinipur for disbursement
of the interest to the writ petitioner in terms of direction of the
Court as above, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date
of communication of copy of this judgment.
25. The writ petition No. WPA 22952 of 2022 is allowed and
disposed of along with applications pending if any.
26. Urgent certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite
formalities.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
