Advocate Rajesh Kshetry Secures Compensation and Land Return in Landmark Acquisition Dispute

This case study highlights the successful legal battle of Ms. Gorai, represented by Senior Advocate Rajesh Kshetry, against the state authorities regarding the acquisition and compensation for her land, which was initially requisitioned for the construction of a girls’ hostel.

Background

In 1988, the Collector initiated the procedure to acquire a vast area of land, including Ms. Gorai’s property, for constructing a girls’ hostel under the West Bengal Land (Requisition & Acquisition) Act, 1948. Despite the construction being completed, Ms. Gorai only received an ad hoc payment, with the full compensation still pending.

The West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Act of 1948 was later repealed, and the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment Act) 1997 came into effect. According to the new act:

• Sub-section 3(A) requires the Collector to provide a notice to all interested parties, with the date of the notice considered the reference date for determining land value.
• Sub-section 3(B) stipulates that the publication date of such notice is the reference date for land value determination.
• Section 11 mandates the Collector to make an award for payment for land vested with the government, free from encumbrances.

Despite these provisions, the Collector did not make the necessary payments. Consequently, the deceased father of Ms. Gorai and others moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Role of Advocate Rajesh Kshetry

Advocate Rajesh Kshetry executed a remarkable and strategic legal approach to secure justice for Ms. Gorai. Their actions included:

1. Arguing that the respondent was bound to pay a significant compensation as per the law.
2. Seeking the withdrawal or setting aside of the acquisition notice issued before the act was repealed, arguing it was unjust.
3. Demanding the return of the land, asserting that its acquisition constituted illegal and forcible occupation and was a colourable exercise of power.
4. Obtaining an injunction to restrain the respondent from continuing the acquisition procedure.

Verdict

The court ruled in favour of Ms. Gorai, ordering the following:

1. The respondent was directed to pay fair and sizable compensation to Ms. Gorai.
2. The land was to be returned to Ms. Gorai and the other petitioners.
3. The entire procedure, as per the court order, was to be completed within 14 months.
4. Ms. Gorai and the other petitioners were entitled to any additional benefits under the act regarding the land.

Advocate Rajesh Kshetry’s expertise and strategic legal manoeuvres were pivotal in securing a favourable verdict for Ms Gorai. His dedication ensured that justice was served, resulting in the rightful compensation and return of the land to the petitioners. This case stands as a testament to the importance of experienced legal representation in navigating complex land acquisition disputes.