Back
BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Krishnendu Saha – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
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 no
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.
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
