The acquisition proceedings under the Land Development and Planning Act lapsed; fresh proceedings must be initiated for compensation assessment, reaffirming the limited applicability of the Land Acquisition Act for such cases.

JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against a judgment dated August 23, 2024 passed in WP No. 17016 (W) of 2015, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition, inter alia holding that the acquisition proceeding in respect of the subject-plots of land had lapsed by operation of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the LA Act”) and directed the State/appellants to initiate a fresh acquisition proceeding in accordance with the relevant statute and determine compensation in accordance with law and to pay the same to the writ petitioners/present respondents, if they are entitled to the same.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are as follows.

3. On May 19, 1950, a Notification, bearing no. 5382 L.Dev., was issued under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 (for short “the LDP Act”). A Declaration under Sections 6 and 7 of the LDP Act, bearing no. 5384 L.Dev., was also issued on the same date, published in the Calcutta Gazette on June 01, 1950.

4. The said Notification and Declaration were issued in respect of several plots, including CS Plot Nos. 3074, 3083 and 3085 (entire plots) as well as CS Plot Nos. 3077 and 3075 (in part). The writ petitioners/respondents restricted their claim for compensation before the writ court only in respect of the abovementioned plots. One Anukul Chandra Ghosh, the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners/respondents, was the absolute owner of the aforementioned plots in Mouza – Beleghata under Police Station – Baranagar in the District of North 24 Parganas. The total area of land, acquired for the purpose of settlement of immigrants, measured about 12.40 acres.

5. A Possession Certificate was issued in respect of the said plots in the name of the said Anukul (since deceased), indicating that the possession of the lands was taken by the State on November 12, 1950. The connected acquisition proceeding was numbered as LDP Case No. 93 of 1949-1950.

6. Thereafter, a Notification was issued on March 17, 1951, published on April 5, 1951, purportedly withdrawing the acquisition in respect of some of the plots. A still subsequent Declaration dated September 4, 1951 was published on September 7, 1951, and a second Possession Certificate was issued on May 24, 1952 in respect of different plots of land, including Plot Nos. 3083 and 3085 in their entirety and portions of Plot Nos. 3075 and 3077.

7. On August 21, 1956, an ad hoc payment of 80% of the estimated compensation was made to the said Anukul, in terms of GO No. 2414–Rehab dated March 30, 1954 and GO No. 35087–Rehab dated February 29, 1956.

8. The said Anukul wrote a letter to the appropriate authorities on February 12, 1957, asking when he would get the payment of the balance compensation.

9. Thereafter, another Declaration was issued on November 8, 1979, disclosing that it was in terms of the May 19, 1950 Notification. The said Declaration dated November 8, 1979 was numbered as 448 L.Dev./5D–2/78 and was purportedly issued under Section 6(a) of the LDP Act. The coverage of the plots was the same as the Notification dated May 19, 1950.

10. Thereafter, the writ petition from which the present appeal arises, that is WPA No. 17016 of 2015, was filed by the writ petitioners/respondents, the heirs and legal representatives of Anukul, inter alia seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents/present appellants to complete the acquisition proceeding bearing LDP Case No. 93 of 1949-1950 by declaring an award in accordance with law, as well as a mandamus commanding the respondents/appellants to initiate a fresh proceedings for acquisition of lands in accordance with law and to declare award invoking the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in brief “the 2013 Act”), as well as for consequential reliefs