Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
JAY SENGUPTA, J.
M/s. Singhania Commercial Corporation & Others - Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal & Others - Respondent
WPA. No. 9042 of 2008
Decided On : 07-02-2023
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - Section 4, 5A, 6, 17(1), 17(4) - Acquisition proceedings - Lapse of - Possession under lease - Continuance of.
Fact of the Case:
Landowners leased a plot of land to various parties, including the West Bengal State Electricity Board (WBSEDCL), for 99 years with an option for renewal. Disputes arose between WBSEDCL and the landowners, leading to requisition of the property by the State under Act II of 1984. The landowners challenged the requisition, and the court ordered the State to complete the acquisition proceedings within three years. However, the Collector failed to pass an award within the stipulated time, causing the notice to lapse. Despite the court's orders, the Collector failed to assess occupation charges and lease rent. Subsequently, the State issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the construction of a regional store for WBSEDCL. The landowners challenged the notification, and the court directed the State to pay 50% of the admitted arrear lease rent to the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that two attempts were made to acquire the property, one under the Act 2 of 1948 and another under the Act 1 of 1894. The case under the Act 2 of 1948 was started when WBSEDCL was already in possession of the land on the basis of a lease. The proceeding was finally set aside by the court on 25.09.1998. The possession of the land thus continued on the basis of the lease. So far as the acquisition proceeding under the Act 1 of 1994 is concerned, possession under Section 17 (1) was not taken. So, the question of continuing with the possession under the said Act did not arise.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, lapsed due to the Collector's failure to pass an award within the stipulated time? 2. Whether WBSEDCL's possession of the property continued on the basis of the lease, despite the lapsed acquisition proceedings? 3. Whether the court could direct WBSEDCL to restore possession of the property to the landowners and pay the assessed rent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, lapsed due to the Collector's failure to pass an award within the stipulated time, as per Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. 2. The court found that WBSEDCL's possession of the property continued on the basis of the lease, despite the lapsed acquisition proceedings, as possession under Section 17(1) of the Act was not taken. 3. The court held that it could direct WBSEDCL to restore possession of the property to the landowners and pay the assessed rent, in the interest of justice.
Final Decision: The court directed WBSEDCL to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the land to the landowners within one year from the date of the order. WBSEDCL was also directed to pay rents as would be assessed by the Collector, Jalpaiguri from November 2009 to the date of handing over possession of the land.
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned notification dated 11.04.2008 issued on 17.04.2008 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in respect of the land situated at Sevoke Road, Mouza Debgram, District-Jalpaiguri.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted as follows. In May 1977 the owners of a plot of land at Jalpaiguri measuring about 2.04 acres with its structures executed several indentures of lease in favour of the petitioner nos. 2 to 11 for 99 years with an option of renewal for further two terms of 99 years. The petitioner nos. 2 to 11 granted a sublease to the petitioner no. 1 company with a right to sublet. Subsequently, the petitioner nos. 2 to 11 executed several indentures of sub-lease in favour of the petitioner nos. 12 and 13 to which the petitioner no. 1 was confirming party. By an agreement dated 01.12.1979, the petitioner no. 1 inducted the West Bengal State Electricity Board (now known as West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.), being the respondent no. 4, for a period of 5 years as lessee at a monthly rental. Thereafter, certain disputes and differences arose between the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 4 stopped paying the lease rent from April 1984. The State of West Bengal then issued the order of requisition dated 10.08.1984 by invoking provisions of Act II of 1984. Being aggrieved, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 filed a writ petition before this Court. A Civil Order No. 16358 (W) of 1984 dated 26.11.1984 was issued and an interim order was passed restraining the respondents from taking any steps in connection with the requisition and/or acquisition of property. During its pendency, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 applied for direction upon the State to complete the acquisition proceeding and pay compensation and in the alternative, to derequisition the property. However, the Collector failed to pass an award within 3 years of the date of publication of notice in the Official Gazette under Section 4(1) (a) of the Act. Hence, the notice lapsed on 31.03.1997. Yet, the respondent no. 4 had been in illegal occupation of the said property. Several writ petitions were filed seeking return of possession. Similar orders as the one passed in June 1990 were passed. The writ petitioners filed W.P. No. 16524 (W) of 2001 for necessary orders for restore possession. By an order dated 19.10.2001, this Court directed the State to pay 50% of the admitted arrear lease rent to the petitioners. In compliance, on 12.04.2002 the State respondent paid 50% of the arrear lease rent for the period of 23.04.1984 to 28.02.2002 after deduction of TDS. By an order dated 14.09.2005, this Court directed the acquisition proceeding to be completed within six months, in default of which the Board was to vacate the property in question. The Collector concerned was also directed to assess the occupation charges and lease rent/rental compensation. Accordingly, the State paid a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs and odd to the petitioners being the arrears of contractual rent upto 31.10.2005. However, in spite of this Court’s order, the Collector Jalpaiguri, deliberately failed and neglected to assess occupation charges and lease rent and rental compensation of the property within the time stipulated. Finally, the impugned notification dated 11.04.2008 was issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for construction of the regional store of the WBSEDCL. While the said writ petition was pending, on 28th July 2010 the writ petitioner received a special notice dated 21st July 2010 purportedly issued under Sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 9 of Act-1 of 1984 notifying that the land in question was about to be taken over by the Government for construction of Regional Store of WBSEDCL in accordance with a purported declaration. In fact, the said declaration dated 2nd June 2008 was pub
When land is acquired under a previous Act and no award is passed during the lifetime of that Act, and the subsequent Act also lapses without an award being passed, a fresh proceeding must be initiat....
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
