Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Before Mr. Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay and Mr. Justice Kishore Kumar Prasad
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
VS.
ASIATIC INVESTMENT LIMITED
F. M. A. NO. 7 OF 2009
Decided On: September 23, 2009
LAND ACQUISITION - Lapse of proceedings - Award - Validity - Publication of declaration - Computation of period - Interim order - Stay of proceedings - Extension of period - Apportionment of compensation - Making of award - Completion - Ascertainment of claims - Calcutta Municipal Corporation dues - Outstanding property tax - Finalization of claim - Bona fide conduct of officers - Scrutiny of office records - Interpolation and over writings - Suspicion of manipulation - Expiry of statutory period - Failure to make award within time limit - Invalidity of award - Liability of transferee to pay property taxes - Absolute vesting free from encumbrances - Removal of charge under Section 232 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 - Enquiry into conduct of officers - Identification of responsible officers - Disciplinary action.
Fact of the Case:
Acquisition proceedings were initiated for the third floor of Premises No. 1, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata for providing barrack accommodation to Calcutta police personnel. The declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 14th January, 1999. The writ petition was filed on 25th January, 1999 wherein an interim order was passed by a learned judge of this Court. The appellants claimed that the award was made on 16th May, 2001 and the same was within the prescribed period provided under Section 11a of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed on 13th April, 2001 as the prescribed statutory period of 2 years together with additional period of 12 weeks during which the interim order of stay passed by the learned Single Judge remained operative had expired. The Court also held that the award without apportionment is invalid and in the present case, even if the claim of the appellants regarding making of the award on 16th May, 2001 is accepted, then also the same cannot be treated as valid award since making of an award without apportionment is invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed on 13th April, 2001? 2. Whether the award without apportionment is invalid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed on 13th April, 2001 as the prescribed statutory period of 2 years together with additional period of 12 weeks during which the interim order of stay passed by the learned Single Judge remained operative had expired, in view of Section 11a of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. The Court held that the award without apportionment is invalid, following the decisions in Rabindra Kumar Basu v. S. K. Banerjee and Ors., 63 CWN 851 and Biswamitra Shukla and Ors. v. L. A. Collector, Burdwan and ors., 74 CWN 349.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and directed the Principal Secretary, Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal to conduct a thorough enquiry in respect of the conduct of the concerned Land Acquisition Collector and other Superior Officers who were responsible for making an attempt to pass an award in a lapsed proceeding with an intention to benefit the Calcutta Police authorities and prejudice the interests of the respondents/writ petitioners in an illegal manner.
( 1 ) THE instant appeal has been preferred at the instance of the State of West Bengal and its authorities assailing the judgment and order passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby and where under the said learned Judge allowed the writ petition on merits. While allowing the writ petition, learned Single Judge of this Court declared that the entire acquisition proceedings relating to the property in question stood lapsed on account of publication of the award after the expiry of the prescribed period as provided in Section 11a of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the award, having been made in a lapsed proceeding, is a nullity and accordingly, quashed the same.
( 2 ) THE facts relating to the acquisition proceedings in respect of the property in question are briefly narrated- hereinafter.
( 3 ) ON 16th June, 1998, a notification was published in the Calcutta gazette under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the third floor of Premises No. 1, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, kolkata-20 for the purpose of providing barrack accommodation to Calcutta police personnel. On behalf of the writ petitioners, objection was filed under Section 5a of the said Act on 24th September, 1998. The declaration under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 14th January, 1999. The copy of the aforesaid declaration was also published in the newspaper "ganasakti" on 20th January, 1999.
( 4 ) THE writ petition where from the present appeal arises was filed on 25th January, 1999 wherein an interim order was passed by a learned judge of this Court. The said order is reproduced here in below: -
"let this matter appear as a contested application before the appropriate Bench eight weeks hence. Let affidavit -in -opposition be filed within four weeks from date and reply, if any, be filed within three weeks thereafter. There will be a stay of operation and further operation of the impugned notice being Annexure 'g' to the writ application for a period of twelve weeks from date or until further orders of this Court whichever is earlier. The reasons for passing the interim order is as follows: considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience i am of the view that stay should be granted as prayed for. "
( 5 ) IT has, however, been submitted on behalf of the appellants that on 23rd February, 1999 declaration was published in the locality. On 17th may, 1999 another learned Judge of this Court considering the prayer of the learned Counsel of the appellants herein extended the time to file affidavit -in -opposition and also granted leave to proceed with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the following effect: -"leave is granted to proceed with Section 6 of the Land acquisition Act which shall abide by the result of the writ petition. "
( 6 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition act was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 14th January, 1999 and a copy of the said declaration was also published in the newspaper 'ganasakti' on 20th January, 1999. Even if the later date i. e. 20th January, 1999 is considered to be the date of publication of the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act then the outer limit of two years under Section 11a of the said Land Acquisition Act expired on 19th January, 2001. Section 11a provides: -
"11 A. Period within which an award shall be made.- The collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation.- In computing the period of two years ref
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
