IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceedings lapsed as no award was made within 2 years of the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, and the State was directed to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act.

JUDGMENT :

ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.

In Re: M.A.T. No. 358 of 2018

1. A Judgment and order dated August 7, 2017, whereby W.P. No. 8661 (W) of 2007 was disposed of by a learned Single Judge, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

2. The undisputed facts of this case are as follows:

(i) Land of the respondents/writ petitioners was acquired by the State, in connection with LA Case No. 4/10 of 1996-97.

(ii) Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the 1894 Act’) dated May 19, 1998 was published in the Calcutta Gazette on July 20, 1998.

(iii) As would appear from the aforesaid notification, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 17(4) of the 1894 Act, the Governor directed that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act shall not apply to the lands described in the schedule to the notification, since, in the opinion of the Governor, the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the 1894 Act, are applicable to such lands.

(iv) Declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, dated November 5, 1998 was published in the Calcutta Gazette on January 4, 1999.

(v) No compensation was ever paid to the writ petitioners.

3. Being aggrieved by non-payment of compensation, the writ petitioners approached the learned Single Judge by filing W.P. No. 8661 (W) of 2007.

4. Before the learned Single Judge, it was argued on behalf of the State that physical existence of the land in question was not available at the time of inspection on December 7, 1998, and as such the State did not proceed with the acquisition.

5. The learned Judge was not impressed. His Lordship observed that after publication of declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, there is nothing to show that the land of the writ petitioners was released from acquisition proceedings. Hence, it is the duty of the State to pay compensation to the writ petitioners. The learned Judge observed that LA Case No. 4/10 of 1996-1997 which was initiated by publication of notice under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, lapsed since no award was made within 2 years of publication of the Section 6 declaration, as mandated by Section 11-A of the Act. Accordingly, the learned Judge directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer, 24 Parganas (North), Barasat who had been added as a respondent pursuant to leave granted by the learned Judge “to initiate fresh land acquisition proceeding against the petitioners in connection with the land of the petitioners for the purpose of payment of compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within the period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of the order.”

6. Being aggrieved, the State has come up against the said order by way of this appeal.

7. Appearing for the State, Mr. R.N. Datta, learned Advocate, argued that some of the writ petitioners died during pendency of the writ petition, before the impugned order was passed. Their legal heirs were not brought on record. Hence, the writ petition abated not only in so far as the deceased petitioners were concerned, the writ petition abated as a whole. This is because the claim of the writ petitioners was joint and could not be split up. In support of his contention, learned Advocate relied on 3 decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are as follows:

(i) State of Punjab vs. Nathu Ram, 1962 AIR 89

(ii) Gurnam Singh (D) through LRs. and Others vs. Gurbachan Kaur (D) by LRs. and Others, 2017 (3) ICC 1.

(iii) Kishun @ Ram Kishun (Dead) through LRs. vs. Bihari (Dead) by LRs. 2005 (4) ICC 491

We shall revert to these decisions later in this judgment.

8. Mr. Dutta then referred to Section 12 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 which reads as follows:

“12. Land gained by recess of river or sea - Any land gained by gradual accession to a [plot of land] whether from the recess of river or of the sea, shall vest in the State Government and the raiyat who owns [the plot of land] shall not be entitled to retain suc