IMPORTANT POINT
Once the land is acquired and vests in the State, it cannot be divested, and subsequent purchasers have no authority to challenge the acquisition proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.

1. The appeal is in assailment of an order dated January 16, 2020 passed in W.P. No. 23993 (W) of 2014 negating the claim of the appellant for compensation in respect of the scheduled lands sought to be acquired by the National Highway Authorities.

2. It was submitted that the scheduled lands being part of the plots of lands which were earlier acquired by the State, were not the subject matter of acquisition in the earlier acquisition proceeding concluded in the year 1965. The aforesaid lands were held and possessed by the predecessors of the writ petitioner/appellant even after the acquisition proceeding of 1965. Later on, the appellants purchased the said land from its erstwhile owners by registered deeds of conveyance.

3. Upon such purchase, his name was duly recorded in the revenue records. The appellants have relied upon a certificate of mutation. It was also contended that the name of the appellant was also initially recorded in the LR ROR but subsequently it was deleted and came to be recorded in the name of Asansol Durgapur Development Authority in such ROR. The appellant challenged such recording which was pending with the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal.

4. Be that as it may, the lands in question were sought to be acquired afresh in a subsequent acquisition proceeding at the behest of National Highway Authority, sometimes in 2012. By a notice served upon the appellant, the National Highway Authority offered to pay compensation to the appellant for the structures alone, standing on the suit lands. However, no compensation for the land was offered to him. Challenging such notice, the appellant approached the writ court in W.P. No. 23993 (W) of 2014. Such writ petition was dismissed by the Trial Judge negating the contentions of the writ petitioners to the effect that no compensation was paid to the land owners and that State failed to demonstrate that the possession of the acquired lands were lawfully taken by the State.

5. The said writ application being W.P. No. 23993 (W) of 2014 was contested by the respondents i.e. the State as well as the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority (ADDA). Learned advocate for the appellants has relied upon the affidavits-in-opposition filed in such writ petition on behalf of the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority as well as the State.

6. It was the contention of the State that the lands in dispute were acquired in a land acquisition proceeding initiated under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 being L. A. Case No. 1R/1965-66. It was also stated on behalf of the State that compensation for the lands in question in respect of the aforesaid acquisition proceeding was already paid to the then recorded owner thereof, namely Kali Sankar Roy, which was duly received by the owner under a cheque on March 29, 1976. Besides, possession of the acquired land was also taken and made over to the requiring authorities on June 11, 1965.

7. Therefore, the acquisition proceeding attained finality. The lands in question have already been vested to the State. The appellants being the post vesting purchasers cannot and did not acquire valid right and title over the said land and consequently they are not entitled for any compensation as claimed. Learned Advocate for the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority relied upon 1970 (2) SCC 149 (LT. Governor of Himachal Pradesh and Another V. Sri Avisnash Sharma).

8. It was also contended that being subsequent purchasers, the appellant has no authority to challenge the acquisition proceeding which was already accepted by the erstwhile owner i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. In support of such proposition, learned advocate appearing for the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority has relied upon the judgment reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133 (V. Chadrasekaran and Another V. Administrative Officer and Others).

9. The documents placed before the Court goes to show that the Land Acquisition Collector proposed to ac