Failure to issue an award within the stipulated period under the Land Acquisition Act results in lapse of notice, affecting the validity of the acquisition process and requiring compensation under Act XXX of 2013.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Sen, J.

1. The affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit-in-reply as filed today on behalf of the respondent nos. 3, 5 and 9 and the writ petitioner respectively are taken on record.

2. This Court has heard Mr. Mandal, learned advocate for the writ petitioner and Mr. Batabyal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State duly led by Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned senior government advocate.

3. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities, more specifically, against the respondent no. 9 herein for quashing and/or rescinding and/or cancelling the order dated 15.02.2024 whereby and whereunder the said respondent no. 9/authority came to a finding that the present writ petitioner are not entitled to compensation in terms of the provision of Act XXX of 2013 and it has been further held that the writ petitioner is entitled to consideration as per direct land purchased policy.

4. At the time of hearing, Mr. Mandal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to Page Nos. 23 to 25 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the representation dated 22.12.2022 as submitted by the writ petitioner with the respondent no. 9/authority.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Mandal that from the copy of the said representation, it would reveal that it is the grievance of the writ petitioner that subsequent to publication of a notice under Section 4(1a) of the Act II of 1948, the writ petitioner’s predecessor-in- interest was served with a notice under Section 5(3) of the Act II of 1948 in connection with L.A. Case No. 86 of 1973-74 but till date, no compensation has been disbursed either in favour of the writ petitioner and/or their predecessor-in-interest.

6. Drawing attention to Section 7A of the Act II of 1948, it is further submitted by Mr. Mandal that the respondent no. 2/authority did not make award under Section 7(2) of Act II of 1948 within the stipulated period i.e., within the period of three years from the date of publication of notice under Section 4(1a) of the Act II of 1948 and, therefore, the notice as issued under Section 4(1a) stood lapsed consequently, the requisition and acquisition proceeding as initiated by the respondents/authorities in respect of the land of the writ petitioner stood vitiated.

7. It is submitted by Mr. Mandal that such factum was placed before the respondents/authorities under cover of the said representation dated 22.12.2022 and since such representation was not considered, the writ petitioner had to approach this Court in an earlier round of litigation by filing WPA 15373 of 2017.

8. Drawing attention to Page Nos. 27 and 28 of the instant writ petition, it is submitted by Mr. Mandal that by an order dated 19.12.2022, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court while disposing WPA 15373 of 2017 directed the respondent no. 9/authority herein to consider the aforementioned representation dated 22.12.2022 as submitted by the writ petitioner in accordance with law.

9. It is further submitted that in compliance of the said order dated 19.12.2022, the reasoned order under challenge is passed. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 9/authority while passing the reasoned order has failed to visualize the true implication of the provision of Section 7A of the Act II of 1948 vis-à-vis to the provision of Section 9(3A) and (3B) of the Act I of 1894.

10. It is further submitted by Mr. Mandal that the instant writ petition is absolutely identical with the case as inv