Background and Facts of the Case

The case of Mr A versus Mr S, represented by Kshetry and Associates, involved a 48-year-old long-standing dispute over land requisition and acquisition by the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA).

Mr A, the petitioner in this case, owned two premises located at No. 3 and 4/1 Sarbamangala Lane, Kolkata, comprising approximately 0.2376 acres of land. In 1976, the petitioners received a requisition proposal from KMDA for the acquisition of this land. The stated purpose for the acquisition was to maintain supplies and services essential to the public by constructing a marketplace that would ensure the availability of essential goods and provide a platform for hawkers to operate legally.

Based on the requisition and as requested by KMDA, the petitioners handed over possession of the land in 1976. However, two years later, in 1978, the respondents informed the petitioners that the premises were no longer required for the proposed project. They issued directives to release the property back to the owners. Despite these directives, the concerned authorities failed to release the property, and it continued to remain under the control of the respondents, leaving the petitioners without their land for an extended period.

Legal Issue

The core legal issue in this case was the continued possession of the petitioners’ property by the respondents, despite the withdrawal of the need for acquisition in 1978. The failure of KMDA and related authorities to return the property as directed created a prolonged and unjust delay, infringing on the petitioners’ rights to reclaim their property.

Representation by Kshetry and Associates

Failing to retrieve their land through administrative channels, the petitioners sought legal recourse. They approached Kshetry And Associates to represent their interests and recover the land. With his extensive legal expertise, the team at Kshetry And Associates meticulously constructed a strategy to address the wrongful retention of the property.

In court, the advocates from Kshetry And Associates presented a compelling case, highlighting the failure of the respondents to honour their own directives from 1978, thereby infringing on the petitioners’ rights for over four decades. The advocate’s argument was based on the principle of wrongful deprivation of property and the respondents’ failure to comply with legal directives. He also emphasized the unnecessary and prolonged suffering caused to the petitioners, who were denied the rightful use and benefit of their land.

Outcome

As a result of Kshetry And Associates’ intelligent and precise legal argument, the court ruled in favour of the petitioners. The respondents were compelled to return the property to the petitioners. Additionally, the court awarded decent compensation to the petitioners, taking into account the undue delay and the continued occupation of the property without legal justification.

Conclusion

This case underscores the importance of legal advocacy in protecting property rights and holding public authorities accountable for their actions. Through Kshetry and Associates’ effective legal representation, the petitioners were able to recover their land after decades of wrongful possession by the respondents. The case further highlights the potential for bureaucratic delays and the need for vigilance in ensuring compliance with legal directives.

This successful resolution added yet another accolade to the reputation of Kshetry and Associates, reinforcing their track record of delivering justice for their clients.

Also Read: BRM & Ors vs. The State of West Bengal: Dispute Against Kolkata Municipal Corporation