IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acceptance of the acquisition and the award by the writ petitioners, along with the possession of the acquired land and the entitlement to compensation, influenced the court's decision in upholding the validity of the acquisition proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. Fourteen appeals directed against the same judgment and order dated September 30, 2022 passed by the first Court in seven writ petitions are heard analogously.

2. These fourteen appeals can be arraigned in two sets. One set of appeals is at the behest of the State of West Bengal, while the other set of appeals is at the behest of the Burdwan Development Authority (BDA).

3. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that, the land in question was acquired by a proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act of 1894’) for a public purpose at the instance of the requiring body namely BDA. He submits that, a notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued on July 6, 2004. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on February 15, 2005 and the publication thereof was made on March 14, 2005. He contends that, possession of the entirety of the land, including the plots involved in the seven writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners, were taken on April 2, 2007. In support of such contention he relies upon a writing dated April 2, 2007 which shows that, the State authorities took possession of the land in question and made over possession thereof to the BDA Authorities. He submits that, award in respect of the acquisition was published on March 9, 2007 with apportionment thereof being also made. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that some of the writ petitioners applied before the authorities for disbursement of the compensation under the award. Therefore, he contends that, since the possession of the land being taken and award thereof being published, the land stood vested with the State. According to him, the question of divesting the land involved in the writ petitions does not arise.

4. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State draws the attention of the Court to the prayers made by the writ petitioners in the seven several writ petitions. He submits that, the first prayer was with regard to a representation dated March 31, 2021 made by the writ petitioners for the purpose of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The second prayer was with regard to release of portion of Plots owned by them from the acquisition proceedings. He submits that, the writ petitioners are entitled to none of the two reliefs as prayed for before the First Court.

5. Relying upon (1997) 6 SCC 207 [W.B. Houseing Board & Ors. Vs. Brijendra Prasad Gupta & Ors.], and (2003) 5 SCC 365 [Ahuja Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.], learned Additional Government Pleader submits that, no roving inquiry is required to be made with regard to the title to the land by the Acquiring Authority. In the facts of the present case, the State proceeded on the basis of the Record of Rights. The writ petitioners are purchasers who purchased from the persons named in the Record of Rights. The Record of Rights available at that material point of time did not show that the writ petitioners were the owners of the land in question.

6. Relying upon (2010) 13 SCC 98 [May George vs. Special Tahsildar & Ors.], learned Additional Government Pleader submits that, provisions of Section 9(3) of the Act of 1894 was held to be not mandatory.

7. Learned Additional Government Pleader submits, relying upon AIR 1996 SC 237[Dr. G.H. Grant vs. The State of Bihar] submits that, the writ petitioners are not remediless so far as compensation is concerned. The writ petitioners can approach the authorities either under Section 18 or under Section 30 of the Act of 1894.

8. With regard to delay in approaching the High Court, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State relies upon (1997) 1 SCC 134 [Ramniklal N. Bhutta & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]. He points out that, the acquisition proceedings are of 2004 with the writ petitions in respect the