Delay is fatal in questioning land acquisition proceedings, and courts cannot invalidate acquisition which stood concluded due to delay and laches.

JUDGMENT

Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. - Writ petition relates to acquisition vis-a-vis derequisition of the land of the petitioner measuring 35 decimal under LR Dag No. 265, 270 and 299 in Mohisgot Mouja, Rajarhat, District North 24 Parganas. The petitioner by presenting this writ petition has claimed release of aforesaid land by the concerned authorities of the state-respondents and return of the same.

2. The proposal for acquisition of the aforesaid land was mooted by the Housing Directorate, Government of West Bengal and accordingly LA Case No. 4/14 of 1999-2000 was initiated in the year 1999. Based on such proposal for acquisition of the land of the petitioner for Rajarhat New Township Project preliminary investigation was carried out and report was prepared on 19th July, 1999 and thereafter notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act of 1894') was published. While issuing such notification under section 4(1) it was specifically stipulated therein that the provisions under section 17(4) of the said Act of 1894 would apply in the acquisition proceeding thereby the requirement as contemplated under section 5A of the said Act of 1894 was dispensed with.

3. On 12th August, 1999 there was newspaper publication of the said notification under section 4(1). The contents of the said notification under section 4(1) was circulated by notifying the same in the conspicuous places e.g. office of SDLRO Barasat, office of BDO Rajarhat, office of BL&LRO Rajarhat, Rajarhat Police Station, Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality and Mahisbathan-II Gram Panchayat as well as it was pasted on the notice-board of the office of the Collector. Such circulation of the notification under section 4(1) was made on 12th August, 1999.

4. Subsequently, declaration was made under section 6 of the said Act of 1894 on 17th August, 1999 which was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 23rd August, 1999 and in addition thereto such declaration under section 6 was published in local newspaper on 20th August, 1999.

5. Mr. Ashok, Kumar Banerjee, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner and submits that a writ petition being W.P.A. 16001 of 1999 was preferred by the petitioner challenging notification under section 4 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 11th August, 2010. The coordinate Bench while dismissing the writ petition on 11th August, 2010 granted liberty to the petitioner to file writ petition afresh on the selfsame cause of action, if so advised. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that pursuant to the leave granted by the coordinate Bench the present writ petition has been instituted with the prayer to derequisition the land of the petitioner since the same remains unutilized till date.

6. During pendency of the previous writ petition it further appears that notice under section 9(3) was issued in the month of December 1999, however, it appears from page 9 of the affidavits-in-opposition affirmed on 12th June, 2019 on behalf of the state-respondents that such notice was refused by the petitioner. Subsequently, verification was held on 13th January, 2000 and award under section 11 of the said Act of 1894 was declared on 22nd May, 2001. Accordingly, the award money was paid to the verified awardees while the sum under such award could not be paid to the petitioner being non- verified awardee and the same was deposited before the learned LA Judge on 14th July, 2006 under memo no. 1403. The possession of the land of the petitioner was handed over to the requiring body on 27th July, 2001 under section 16 of the said Act of 1894.

7. Mr. Banerjee, learned senior advocate has submitted that though the land was proposed to be acquired under the relevant provisions of the said Act of 1894 on the basis of urgency as contemplated under section 17(4) for Rajarhat New Township Project but the land of the petitioner remains unutilized. It has also been contended that failure t