Landowners whose land is acquired for public purposes are entitled to fair compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, even if the acquisition was made under a previous law and no compensation was paid.

JUDGMENT :

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

1. The mother of the petitioners, namely, Nazimessa Bibi, since deceased purchased a plot of land being Dag No.296 measuring an area of about 0.39 acre situated within Mouza-Chak Kashipur, J.L No.48, under Police Station Budge Budge, at present Nodakhali, in the district of South 24 Parganas. On the death of the mother of the petitioners on 4th July, 1989 the petitioners and one Tehera Bibi @ Munia Khatun inherited the said property under Mohammedan Law of inheritance and they used to possess the land jointly. During the life time of the said Nazimessa Bibi, in pursuance to a proposal vide memo 1329 dated 29th March, 1979 issued by the Executive Engineer, Urban Drainage Division, Irrigation and Waterways Department Directorate, Government of West Bengal, an Land Acquisition proceeding was initiated being LA II/8 of 1979-80 for the purpose of excavation of Alampur Khal in connection with Raypur basin drainage system. Indisputably, the said LA proceeding was instituted under the provision of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (herein after described as Act II of 1948). In the said LA proceeding 0.10 acre of land out of 0.39 acre of land in plot No.296 was acquisitioned by a notification under sub Section 1 of Section 3 dated 7th June, 1983.

2. Subsequently, possession of the said land was taken by the Collector, South 24 Parganas and it was handed over to the requiring body on 12th April, 1984.

3. Admittedly no award could be declared in respect of the said LA proceeding within the life time of Act II of 1948. It is needless to say that Act II of 1948 expired and got its natural death with effect from 31st March, 1997.

4. It is also not disputed that due to non-placement of fund the said proceeding under Act II of 1948 was not converted to a proceeding under Act I of 1894 as per the provisions of Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act 1997.

5. In the meantime Act I of 1894 was also repealed with effect from 1st November, 2014 by a new Act viz, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the LA Collector is duty bound to pay compensation upon initiation of a fresh proceeding under 2013 Act in favour of the petitioners for acquisition of the said land. The respondent being statuary authority cannot withheld payment of compensation and award to the petitioners on the plea that the rule in connection with 2013 Act has not been framed. The petitioners also claimed damages and/or occupational charges from the respondent from 1st April, 1997 till the initiation of fresh proceeding under 2013 Act. Under such circumstances the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent to determine and pay compensation in question in respect of the said land in terms of the relevant provisions of 2013 Act. They have also prayed for damages and/or occupational charges from the respondent for the year commencing from 1st April, 1997 till initiation of proceeding under the 2013 Act.

7. Mr. Amit Kumar Pan learned Advocate submits placing reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Sabita Mondal reported in 2011(3) CHN (Cal) 555 that the effect of Land Acquisition, (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997 which came into operation on the midnight between March 31st 1997 and April 1st of 1997 prevented all those notices under sub-Section (1a) of Section 4 issued after April 1st 1994 from being lapsed by giving scope of revival by way of notice under sub-Section (3B) of Section 9 of the said Act if award had not been passed within three years from the date of publication of such notice and which would otherwise lapse if the said Act of 1997 would not came into operation at the midnight of March 31st, 1997.

8. However in respect of those notice under sub Section (1a) of Section 4 which were issued prior to Mar