JUDGMENT :

SUVRA GHOSH, J.

1. Since all the writ petitions involve similar issues of law and fact, they are taken up for consideration by a common judgment.

2. The petitioners purchased the plots in question from the erstwhile owner Smt. Vidya Devi Agarwala and mutated their names in respect of the same. The petitioners have been residing in the said plots upon payment of tax. Upon threat of utilisation of their land by the Government and demolition of existing structures thereon sometime in June, 2018, the petitioners learnt that an area of land measuring 1.37 acres in R.S. plot no. 530 and .38 acres in R.S. plot no. 531 has been acquired vide notification no. 472-L.A. dated 5th February, 1987. The petitioners obtained a copy of notice under section 4(1a) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 demonstrating that the plots in question were acquired in terms of the notice under section 3(1) of the Act. But such notice of requisition was not given effect to and the land in question was released. The record of rights is still in the name of the erstwhile owner and the petitioners are in possession of the property till date. Only rent compensation has been paid by the State respondents and compensation is yet to be disbursed. The petitioners have prayed for an order in terms of section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the authority in Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority vs. Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society and Others, (2018) 8 SCC 215 and Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 in support of his contention.

4. Per contra, learned counsels for the State respondents have submitted that the plots in question were acquired under the Act of 1948 and both rent compensation and award have been paid to the land losers. Possession of the plots has been taken under section 3/4 of the Act of 1948 and construction of road has been completed. The petitioners being post vesting purchasers, have no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings. Also, section 24 of the Act of 2013 pertains to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and has no manner of application in the present cases. Acquisition proceedings were concluded and possession handed over to the Public Works Department on 10th July, 1968. The inordinate delay in approaching this Court has not been explained by the petitioners. Learned counsel has also relied upon the authority in Indore Development Authority (supra)

5. I have considered the submission made on behalf of the parties as well as material on record and the law on the point.

6. It is not in dispute that the plots in question were requisitioned under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 for the purpose of construction of road and bridge of National Highway 31 of the river Mahananda at Siliguri and notice under section 4(1a) of the Act of 1948 was published on 11th March 1987. The petitioners are admittedly subsequent purchasers who purchased the land after publication of the notification under section 4(1a) of the Act of 1948. According to the petitioners, the land was mutated in their names and they are in possession of the land all throughout. The petitioners say that the notice of requisition was not given effect to and the land was ultimately not acquired, thereby resulting in the proceedings being lapsed.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the authorities in Shiv Kumar and Another vs. Union of India and Others, (2019) 10 SCC 229, V. Chandrasekaran and Another vs. Administrative Officer and Others, (2012) 12 SCC 133 and Indore Development Authority (supra) has observed that a person who purchases land subsequent to notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground w