IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that land acquisition remains valid despite changes in intended use, provided legal procedures are followed and possession is taken.

JUDGMENT :

T.S. Sivagnanam, C.J.

1. All the three writ petitions were heard analogously as the common challenge is to the land acquisition done by the State of West Bengal and the project conceived and developed by the West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HIDCO).

2. WPA Nos. 27353 of 2017 and 13936 of 2017 have been filed as public interest litigations by an organisation and five individuals who are the petitioners.

3. WPA 10590 of 2019 has been filed by seven petitioners claiming to be land losers whose land were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act).

4. In WPA 27353 of 2017, the petitioners prayed for quashing the entire land acquisition proceedings and for a declaration to declare the decision of the respondents to use the acquired land for real estate business as being illegal and amounts to fraud and void; for a writ of mandamus to declare the cabinet decision to transfer the land from the West Bengal Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IIDC) to HIDCO and for other consequential and incidental relief.

5. WPA 13936 of 2017 also seeks for an identical prayer. The petitioners in WPA 10590 of 2019 have prayed for a Writ of Prohibition to restrain any construction being done till the Land Use and Development Control Plan (LUDCP) is prepared; to direct the respondents to prepare fresh LUDCP and to restrain the authorities from filling up the water bodies and for cancellation of the entire land acquisition proceedings on the ground that the respondents have played fraud on the erstwhile owners of the land.

6. In WPA 13936 of 2017 an interim order was passed on 31.10.2017 without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties not to move further towards settlement of the land until further orders. On account of this interim order, the project has come to a standstill. Subsequently, by order dated 03.05.2018, the court observed that the writ application involves interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others Versus M/s. G. D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Limited and Another dated 21.02.2018 the hearing of the writ petition was adjourned till such time the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decides the issue of interpretation of Section 24 of the 2013 Act.

7. The task of deciding the first question namely with regard to the interpretation of Section 24 of the 2013 Act has become easier in the light of the Larger Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Versus Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the conclusions recorded from paragraphs 365 to 366.9 has summed up the legal position in the following terms:-

365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn. is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether "or" has to be read as "nor" or as "and" was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment.

366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:

366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b)