Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 57
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Rajasekhar Mantha, J.
Mira Rani Hazra And Others - Appellants
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 25195 of 2015
Decided On : 04-02-2020
Important Points
Subject
Land Acquisition - Acquisition Proceedings and Lapsing
Act Referred
FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT : S.34, S.37(2)
GENERAL RULES : R.22
INCOME TAX ACT : S.132
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.21
KARNATAKA ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR GRANT OF HOUSE SITES ACT : S.5
KARNATAKA ACT : S.5
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.11, S.11(a), S.9, S.10
MADHYA PRADESH NAGAR TATHA GRAM NIVESH ADHINIYAM : S.69, S.69(d)
MRTP ACT : S.116, S.113(2)
PCRA : S.2, S.3
WEST BENGAL LAND DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING ACT : S.6, S.8
Headnote
West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act - Acquisition Proceedings - Section 6, Section 8 - The court addressed the issues raised in the case by interpreting the scope and purport of Section 8 of the 1948 Act. The court found that the subsequent amendment to the 1894 Act would apply to acquisition proceedings even under the 1948 Act. The court held that the acquisition proceedings under LD case No.55 of 1954-55 have lapsed by reason of the application of Section 11A of the amended 1894 Act.
Fact of the Case:
The State Government acquired land under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act of 1948. The petitioners claimed that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to the non-publication of an award under the 1948 Act. The State contended that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed and compensation was required to be paid as per the valuation prevalent in 1946.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition proceedings under LD case No.55 of 1954-55 had lapsed by reason of the application of Section 11A of the amended 1894 Act. The court also noted that the decision in the Aziman Bibi case had not been upset by the Supreme Court and was binding on the court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to the non-publication of an award under the 1948 Act and the subsequent amendment to the 1894 Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the subsequent amendment to the 1894 Act would apply to acquisition proceedings even under the 1948 Act. The court also relied on the decision in the Aziman Bibi case, which had not been upset by the Supreme Court and was binding on the court.
Final Decision: The court held that the acquisition proceedings in LDP Case No. 55 of 1954-55 had lapsed. There was no order as to costs.
Debayan Bera, Advocate, Shakti Prasad Chadraborty, Advocate, Kishore Dutta, Advocate, Chandi Charan De, Advocate, Soumitra Banerjee, Advocate, P.S. Basu, Advocate, Satyajit Talukdar, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Rajasekhar Mantha, J. - The brief facts relevant are that C.S./R.S. Plot No. 1 Mouza Madurdaha, at E.M. Bypass in Kolkata, comprised in 47.63 Acres of land. (R.S. Plot No.1)
2. A declaration was published under section 6 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act of 1948 in respect of 265.20 Acres of Land that was numbered LD Case No.55 of 1954 55. An area of about 33.10 Acres out of the said aforesaid 265.20 Acres fell under C.S./R.S. Plot No. 1 of Mouza Madurdaha. The Land was meant for Refugee Rehabilitation Department of the State Government.
3. Possession was taken under the aforesaid LD Case of about 265.20 acres of land which included Land measuring about 33.10 Acres. In respect of the said 265 Acres of Land an award was declared of all plots excluding plots under R.S.No.1. Mouza Madurdaha. Despite the above an area of 9.29 acres of the said R.S.Plot No.1. Was taken over by the State as vested land and handed over to the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA).
4. In respect of the balance 14.53 Acres in R.S No.1, L.A. Case No.4/22 of 2000/2001 was commenced by the State. An award for the entire 14.53 Acres was declared. Award in respect of one half of the said land was paid to the recorded owners and the balance half was paid to the Collector as the recorded owner. Admittedly the Collector could not have been the recorded owner in respect of other half of the land as no award was declared in aforesaid LD case.
5. The petitioners lay claim in respect of the 9.29 Acres of land by deducing that out of the total area of plot no. 1 above 23.815 Acres of Land has been stated to have been vested in the State and the balance 23.815 is Retained land. Of the said 23.815 Acres of retained land about 14.53 Acres is stated to have been settled in favour of the KMDA pursuant to LA Case No.4 of 22.
6. The petitioners have argued that their lands have been taken away in part under the aforesaid LD Case No.54 of 1956/57 which has lapsed.
7. The property has changed hands from the state to private persons from time to time. No award has been passed in respect of the aforesaid Ld. Court in respect of R.S No.1 Not compensation has been paid.
8. The state would contend before the Court that the original acquisition having been made under the provisions of the 1948 Act and quantum of compensation being specified under the said 1948 Act, there is no question of formal declaration of any compensation. Reliance is placed on the Proviso b) to Section 8 of the said Act. It is argued that the market value of the land should be that of the year 1955.
9. The parties are ad idem that an interpretation of scope and purport of Section 8 of the 1948 Act addressed the issues raised herein.
10. Mr. Bera appearing for the petitioners would argue that since no award has been published under the acquisition made by the State as per the 1948 Act for the purpose of Refugee Rehabilitations the Said acquisition proceedings have lapsed. The KMDA contended that they received the land in question from the State of West Bengal and have transferred the same to private parties who have further transferred the same. A large number of third party interest has been created in respect of the said land. The KMDA contents that they cannot be held liable for any compensation or any sum of money, the petitioner and the latter if at all may have a claim against the State.
11. The State admits that compensation is required to be paid but only in terms of Proviso b) of Sections 8 of the 1948 Act i.e. as per the valuation prevalent on the 31st of December 1946.
12. The petitioners' arguments are summarised as follows:
a. Section 8 of the 1948 Act includes by reference provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 11 of the L.A. Act 1894 came to be amended in the year 1984 introducing Section 11A, which prescribes that if an award is not published under proceedings under the L.A. Act within 2 years of initiation thereof, such proceedings would laps
