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.

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, 1995 with the compensation being deposited on October 11, 1995. He has relied upon 2020 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases 129 ( Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others ) in support of the contention that, the land stood vested with the State and therefore, the same cannot be divested.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has relied upon All India Reporter 1972 Cal 8 ( Mihir Kumar Sarkar and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others ) as the quality of a notice under Section 3 of the Act of 1948. He has relied upon 2019 Volume 10 Supreme Court Cases 29 ( Savita vs. State of Delhi ) for the proposition that sale of land after issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894 is void.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, under the scheme of the Act of 1894, a notice under Section 4 thereof, exhibits the intention of the State to acquire a property. Thereafter, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 confirms that the State requires the land. Section 9 and Section 16 of the Act of 1894 provides a mechanism for notice to be issued to the interested parties inviting claims and objection and an award being passed. He has submitted that, on an award being passed and possession being taken, the land stands vested with the State absolutely.

7. Referring to the provisions of the Act of 1948 learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has submitted that Section 3 thereof, prescribes the State taking preliminary control over the land. A notice under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1948 specifies the intention of the State Government to acquire the land. Publication under Section 4(2) of the Act of 1948 specifies the immediate and absolute vesting of the land free from encumbrances. He has contended that provision of Section 3 of the Act of 1948 equals to Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 as, both represent the first public notice asserting the intention of the Government to take over the land and in fact taken preliminary control of the land. He has contended that, issuance of notice under Section 3 of the Act of 1948 is a constructive notice to subsequent purchaser.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, Section 4 of the Act of 1948 is a summation of the provisions of Section 6, 9 and 16 of the Act of 1894. He has contended that, Section 4 consolidates the final acquisition notice, invites and provides for a