Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, APURBA SINHA RAY, JJ.
The State of West Bengal and Others – Appellants
Versus
Pranab Kumar Mukherjee – Respondent
MAT No. 71 of 2018, IA Nos. CAN of 1, 2 of 2018 (Old Nos. CAN of 876, 877 of 2018)
Decided On : 16-08-2023
LAND ACQUISITION - SECTION 4 NOTIFICATION - LAPSE OF PROCEEDINGS - DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION - DELAY AND LACHES - RIGHT TO PROPERTY - HUMAN RIGHT - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT - ARTICLE 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
Writ petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 challenging the acquisition of his land by the State Government under Section 3 of the West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, for the construction of a road. The State Government had issued a fresh L.A. Case No. 3/PWD/2004-05 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but no Award was ever passed. The Respondent approached the Court seeking compensation in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act).
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act issued prior to January 1, 2014, would be alive even after that date notwithstanding that as on that date no Award had been made. Proceedings will continue in terms of the provisions of the 1894 Act in so far as the procedure is concerned till the stage of determination of compensation. However, compensation will be computed applying the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to determination of compensation. The Court also held that the delay on the part of the writ petitioners in approaching the Court will not cause imposition of greater financial burden on the State since in the mean time the 2013 Act has come into operation and holds the field.
Issues: 1. Whether the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issued prior to January 1, 2014, would survive after that date? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act would lapse if no Award was passed as on January 1, 2014, when the 2013 Act came into force? 3. Whether the compensation amount would be determined in terms of the provisions of the 2013 Act or the 1894 Act? 4. Whether the delay on the part of the writ petitioners in approaching the Court would disentitle them from seeking compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, to hold that where Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act applies, i.e. where there is no Award on the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, the proceedings initiated under 1894 Act do not lapse. However, compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. 2. The Court also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd & Ors. v. Mr. Deepak Agarwal (supra), to hold that a Section 4 notification under the 1894 Act issued prior to January 1, 2014, would be alive even after that date notwithstanding that as on that date no Award had been made. Proceedings will continue in terms of the provisions of the 1894 Act in so far as the procedure is concerned till the stage of determination of compensation. However, compensation will be computed applying the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to determination of compensation. 3. The Court further held that the delay on the part of the writ petitioners in approaching the Court will not cause imposition of greater financial burden on the State since in the mean time the 2013 Act has come into operation and holds the field.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the State Government was dismissed. The Court directed the First Land Acquisition Collector/ the Competent Authority to complete the process of determination of the compensation amount, in light of the observations made in this judgment, within 12 weeks from date and pay the amount to the respondent/writ petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
JUDGMENT :
ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated May 18, 2016, whereby the writ petition of the respondent no. 1 being W.P. No. 5568(W) herein was disposed of with similar direction as was given in the judgment and order dated May 16, 2016, rendered in W.P. 5590(W) of 2016. Such direction was as follows:
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that land of the respondent/writ petitioner was requisitioned by the State Government under Section 3 of the West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, and possession thereof taken over for construction of Haringhata-Panpur Road in the District of Nadia, in connection with LA Case no. 52/General/B.R.P/Rehab of 1981-82. Possession of such land was handed over to the requiring body on August 13, 1982. The land has been utilized for the purpose of constructing the aforesaid road.
3. For reasons which are not relevant, a fresh L.A. Case No. 3/PWD/2004-05 was initiated by the competent authority by issuance of notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is not in dispute that no Award was ever passed in connection with the said land acquisition case.
4. The respondent no. 1 approached the learned Single Judge. The order under appeal was passed directing the Government to determine and pay compensation to the writ petitioner in terms of the provisions of the 2013 Act.
5. Being aggrieved, the State Government has come up by way of this appeal.
6. Appearing for the appellant, learned Advocate submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in directing the Government to pay compensation following the provisions of the 2013 Act. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd and Others vs. Deepak Agarwal and Others in SLP (C) Nos. 16631-16632/2018, learned Advocate submitted that if notice under Section 4 of the LA Act 1894, was issued prior to the 2013 Act coming into force but no Award was passed prior to January 1, 2014, when the 2013 Act came into force, the land acquisition proceedings will continue as per provisions of the LA Act 1894 and only for determination of the compensation amount the provisions of the 2013 Act will be applicable.
7. Learned Advocate then submitted, relying on the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, that possession of the land of the respondent/writ petitioner having been taken over in 1982 and the writ petitioner having approached the Court only in 2016, i.e., after a lapse of 34 years, the writ petition is barred on the grounds of delay and laches. Learned Advocate submitted that if a claimant is aware of violation of his rights and does not claim his remedies promptly, such inaction or conduct tantamounts to a waiver of his right. In such cases, the lapse of time and delay are very material factors and cannot be ignored by the Court. He submitted that the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
8. Learned Advocate for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that since no declaration under Section 6 was published within one year from the date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act 1894, or at all, in connection with the L.A. Case initiated in 2004-2005, the acquisition proceedings lapsed. This has also been admitted by the Government in its MEMO No. 214/1-LA dated February 19, 2015, (Annexure R-5 to the affidavit-in
Where Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) applies, i.e. where there is no Award on the date o....
Where no award has been made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, re....
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,....
Where acquisition proceedings under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, and a subsequent notice under Section 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, have lapsed, the petit....
Requisition proceedings under 1948 Act lapsed without proper compensation; State must initiate acquisition under 2013 Act.
No lapse of proceedings under the Act of 1894 occurs if compensation has been paid and possession of the acquired land has been assumed, even if no award has been made.
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
