The central legal point established in the judgment is that the right to compensation for expropriation of property is guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and delay in seeking compensation should not bar individuals from claiming their rights.

JUDGMENT :

Kausik Chanda, J.

1. This appeal is arising out of an order dated December 22, 2021, whereby a learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

2. In the writ petition, the writ petitioners prayed, inter alia, for a declaration that the Land Acquisition Case No.4/34 of 1999-2000 stood lapsed and prayed for a direction to put the petitioners in possession of their respective plots of land. In the alternative, it was prayed that the respondents be directed to acquire the petitioners’ land and to pay compensation in terms of the “present Land Acquisition Act.”

3. The petitioners made out a case that they were settled with different plots of vested land by the State of West Bengal. The petitioners alleged that the said lands of the petitioners along with other contiguous plots were acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners claimed that though they were “Raiyats”, no award was published in their name and no compensation was paid to them.

4. The writ petition was dismissed by an order dated July 4, 2016, by a learned Single Judge of this Court observing, inter alia, that such dismissal will not cause prejudice to the rights of the petitioners in pursuing their respective claims in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.

5. The writ petitioners challenged the said order before a Division Bench by preferring an appeal being M.A.T. 1368 of 2016, which was disposed of on November 2, 2017.

6. The operative part of the said order dated November 2, 2017, is quoted below:

“Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides for such a reference at the instance of any person interested who has not accepted the award. Such interested person may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

“Person interested” has been defined in Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which runs as follows:-

“Section 3(b) – the expression “person interested” includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land.”

In view of the said definition clause, we have no hesitation to hold that the writ petitioners/appellants being persons interested can apply for such a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, since the time limit for seeking such reference before the Collector has already expired, we, by relaxing such time limit, permit the writ petitioners/appellants to submit such an application before the concerned Collector within four weeks from date and in the event, such an application is submitted by the writ petitioners/appellants before the concerned authority within the time as fixed above, the concerned authority will consider the same in accordance with law within four weeks from date.”

7. The writ petitioners, thereafter, sought a review of the said order by filing a review application being R.V.W. 272 of 2017.

8. The said review application was disposed of by an order dated September 25, 2019, directing the writ petition to be heard again to examine afresh as to whether the Land Acquisition Case No.4/34 of 1999-2000 stood lapsed.

9. It was observed in the said review order dated September 25, 2019, as follows:

“…

7. We find from the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the coordinate Bench under review that there has been no determination in respect of prayer “a” quoted supra seeking declaration that Land Acquisition Case being L.A. 4/34 of 1999-2000 stood lapsed.

8. Mr. Mahata, learned advocate for the respondents concedes that it is only the High Court that can grant the declaration as pra