Failure to issue an award within the stipulated period under Act II of 1948 causes acquisition proceedings to lapse, necessitating a new process under Act XXX of 2013 for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. On the last occasion that is on 16.07.2025 this Court has heard Mr. Mandal, learned advocate for the writ petitioners extensively.

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

3. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities, more specifically, against the respondent no. 5 herein for quashing and/or rescinding and/or cancelling the order dated 01.03.2023 whereby and whereunder the said respondent no. 5/authority came to a finding that the present writ petitioners are not entitled to compensation in terms of the provision of Act XXX of 2013 and it has been further held that the writ petitioners are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,465.32 together with interest upto the date of payment in terms of the provision of Act I of 1894.

4. At the time of hearing, Mr. Mandal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to Page Nos. 19 and 20 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the representation dated 18.02.2017 as submitted by the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners with the respondent no. 5/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 petitioners that subsequent to publication of a notice under Section 4(1a) of the Act II of 1948, the writ petitioners’ 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. 204-72/13 but till date, no compensation has been disbursed either in favour of the writ petitioners 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 petitioners 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 18.02.2017 and since such representation was not considered, the writ petitioners had to approach this Court in an earlier round of litigation by filing WPA 10775 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 18.11.2022, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court while disposing WPA 10775 of 2017 directed the respondent no. 5/authority herein to consider the aforementioned representation dated 18.02.2017 as submitted by the writ petitioners in accordance with law.

9. It is further submitted that in compliance of the said order dated 18.11.2022, the reasoned order under challenge is passed. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 5/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 involved in WPA 17757 of 2024 (Sadhan Narayan Kundu & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) as disposed of by this Court by the judgment dated 20.05.2025. It is thus submitted by Mr. Mandal that appropriate relief/reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioners in terms of the prayers made in the instant writ petition.

11. Per contra, Mr. Bataby