IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
Krishnendu Saha & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
WPA No. 5613 of 2012 With CAN 1 of 2012 (Old CAN No.7528 of 2012)
Decided On : 11-08-2023
LAND ACQUISITION - Rajarhat-New Town Satellite Township Project - Petitioners' land acquired under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Petitioners contended that no urgency was pleaded or stated in the notification published in the official gazette - HELD, the letter of the requisitioning authority clearly states that the Ministry-in-Charge was of the opinion that the lands in Mouza Tarulia ought to be acquired urgently for construction of Rajarhat-New Town Satellite Township Project.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners' land was acquired for the purpose of Rajarhat-New Town Satellite Township Project. Petitioners contended that they were not served with any notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the acquisition was illegal as no material was placed by the State Government as to why the provisions of Section 5A were dispensed with.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the acquisition proceeding was correctly initiated and concluded. The court also held that there was no illegality in invoking Section 17 of the Act and that the acquisition proceeding cannot be questioned at this stage after a long lapse of delay especially when the possession of land was taken and it was developed.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were served with any notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 2. Whether the acquisition was illegal as no material was placed by the State Government as to why the provisions of Section 5A were dispensed with?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Publication of notice under Section 4 of the Act is sufficient proof of knowledge of service of notice upon the persons interested on the land. 2. The letter of the requisitioning authority clearly states that the Ministry-in-Charge was of the opinion that the lands in Mouza Tarulia ought to be acquired urgently for construction of Rajarhat-New Town Satellite Township Project.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition on contest, however, there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
1. One Krishnendu Saha and Phani Bhusan Saha, since deceased were joint owners in respect of Dag No.276 appertaining to khatian No.99/1 and 293/1 in mouza-Tarulia, JL No.21 recorded as Sali (Agricultural) land measuring about 34 decimals under Rajarhat Police Station in the district of North 24 Parganas. Be it mentioned that during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the petitioner No.2 Phani Bhusan Saha expired and his legal heirs and successors, namely, Gopal Saha and Jayanta Saha have been substituted as petitioners No.2A and 2B in the instant writ petition. It is stated by the petitioners that the aforesaid land in question was in use and occupation and possession of the petitioners since they became the owners of the said land. The petitioners paid all rents and taxes to the State of West Bengal till 1416 BS. It is further stated by the petitioners that by a purported notification No.281/LA-4/167 of 98-99/NTP dated 11th January, 1999 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the respondent No.3 required the said land for public purpose, for establishment of New Town-Rajarhat Township. The petitioners have alleged that the said notice under Section 4(1) of the Act 1 of 1894 was never served upon them and they collected the said notice under Right to Information Act on 11th June, 2010 from the officer of the LA Collector, North 24 Parganas. Further case of the petitioners is that the petitioners along with other villagers/farmers made an agitation against the impugned notification in respect of requisition and acquisition of land of Patharghata Tarulia Mouza in the name of Rajarhat-New Town project by the State authorities adopting oppressive measures. The agitation of the petitioners and other local people was suppressed by the State authorities by lodging FIR against them on the basis of which Rajarhat Police Station Case No.195 dated 11th June, 2004 under Sections 148/149/341/323/427/506/397 of the IPC was registered. Subsequently, police submitted charge-sheet against a large number of people of Patharghata and Tarulia Mouza which gave rise to GR Case No.111/04 which is still pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat. Therefore, the petitioners were not in a position to make any objection under Section 5(A) of the Act 1 of 1894. It is also alleged that the petitioners were never served with any notice of acquisition of land under Section 9(2) of the said Act. The respondent authorities did not follow statutory provision for service of notice. Petitioners being the persons interested in respect of the land in question which was illegally acquired by the State of West Bengal, particularly the Collector, North 24 Parganas, the respondent No.3 herein, were also not in a position to file a claim for compensation in respect of the land acquired illegally for public purpose. Though, the petitioners used to reside at the relevant point of time in Mouza Tarulia, no notice under Section 9(2) of the said Act was issued to the petitioners. They were not allowed to participate in the process of passing award of compensation for the land acquired illegally under Section 11 of the said Act. The petitioners were not served with any copy of the award sheet under Section 11 of the said Act. Various provisions of Section 4, Section 11, Section 12 and Section 23 were not followed by the respondent.
2. On the above pleadings the petitioners has prayed for following reliefs:-
(b) A Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue, commanding the respondent authorities to allow the petitioners to make objections under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and make claims for compensation under Sub-Section 1 and 2 of Section 9 of the said Act forthwith.
(c) A Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue comm
Sudhir Chaudhuri vs. Union of India
Acquisition of land under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ground of urgency - Requirement of Section 5A
Delay is fatal in questioning land acquisition proceedings, and courts cannot invalidate acquisition which stood concluded due to delay and laches.
If there is failure to publish notification in two daily newspapers, notification and consequential proceedings for acquiring land would stand vitiated for non-compliance of essential conditions of S....
Procedural lapses in land acquisition notification, hearing, and timelines vitiate proceedings, but completed construction and record loss warrant fresh award under original Act rather than new regim....
The invocation of urgency provisions in land acquisition must be justified by genuine emergencies; significant delays undermine such claims and violate the right to object.
In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment ....
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with the requirements under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and held that the acquisition of the land was lawful.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.