Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Development Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Dropadi Devi Bhagalewala – Respondent
Judgement :
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. Appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated December 08, 2023 passed in WPA 18345 of 2017 by learned Single Judge.
2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the learned Single Judge erred in subha karmakar Digitaly signed by subha karmakar Date: 2025.07.16 entertaining the writ petition. He has contended that, there was unexplained delay of 30 years from the date on which the writ petitioner has claimed to become owners of the land, in filling a writ petition assailing the acquisition proceedings.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the first writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed for default and the writ petitioner did not take any steps on the restoration of the same. Thereafter, the writ petitioners after a lapse of 4 years, filed a fresh writ petition, seeking quashing of proceedings initiated under the provisions of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1944.
4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, possession of the land was taken on February 20, 1987 and that, an award was passed on September 19, 19
Failure to comply with statutory timelines for land acquisition leads to the lapse of the acquisition, reviving the original owner's title to the land.
The court ruled that acquisition proceedings under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act lapsed due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, reviving the rights of original lan....
The court established that lapsed acquisition notices under the 1948 Act result in the revival of original ownership, and subsequent notices cannot validate expired proceedings.
Notices under Section 4(1a) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 issued prior to March 31, 1992, and for which no award was passed within 3 years, had already lapsed and co....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acceptance of the acquisition and the award by the writ petitioners, along with the possession of the acquired land and the entitlement to....
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 Ac....
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
