ARIJIT BANERJEE
State of West Bengal – Appellant
Versus
Premendu Sekhar Hazra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Arijit Banerjee, J.
1. A Judgment and order dated January 9, 2018, whereby the writ petition of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, being W.P. 11798(W) of 2017, was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal at the instance of the State of West Bengal, and the Land Acquisition Collector Burdwan.
2. The material facts of the case are not in dispute. The respondents writ petitioners were owners of land described in details in the writ petition. Such land was taken over by the State Government for the purpose of constructing a road, in exercise of power under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 1948 Act). It appears that possession of the land was made over to the requiring body sometime in December, 1976. No notice under Section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act, for acquiring the concerned land, was ever published by the State Government. The proceeding under the 1948 Act was converted into a proceeding for acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 1894 Act), by issuing notice under Section 9(3A) of the 1894 Act to
Sukh Dutta Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported at (2022) 7 SCC 508
U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh & Anr.
Vidya Devi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. reported at (2020) 2 SCC 569.
The court established that incomplete land acquisition proceedings under the 1948 Act lapse under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, mandating compensation determination according to the latter.
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....
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,....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the right to compensation for expropriation of property is guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and delay in seeking....
The delay in approaching the court did not debar the petitioner from seeking remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The demand for justice was compelling, and the court emphasized the....
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 d....
The lapse of acquisition proceedings under the 1948 Act can invalidate subsequent awards unless a fresh notice is issued under Section 9 of the 1894 Act, which initiates new vesting.
Failure to pass an award within 12 months post-enactment of the new land acquisition legislation results in lapse of the acquisition proceedings initiated under the old legislation.
The State cannot deprive a citizen of his property without following due process of law and without paying just compensation.
Subsequent purchasers of land can only claim compensation based on their vendors' titles and cannot challenge acquisition proceedings initiated under different statutes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.