Requisition proceedings under 1948 Act lapsed without proper compensation; State must initiate acquisition under 2013 Act.

JUDGMENT :

Kausik Chanda, J.

This appeal, at the instance of the Sainthia Municipality, Birbhum, is directed against a judgment and order dated July 17, 2017, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. The writ petitioners claimed before the learned Single Judge that 20 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No.5062, J.L. No.95 of Mouza-Sainthia under Sainthia Police Station, Birbhum was requisitioned by the State by initiating L.A. Case No.2 of 1986-87 under the provisions of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (in short, the Act of 1948). Following the said Act of 1948, the possession of the land was taken over and transferred to Sainthia Municipality. The writ petitioners argued that the proceeding initiated under the provisions of Act of 1948 was not converted into a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, Act of 1894) and, therefore, the requisition proceeding had lapsed. The relevant land was neither released from requisition nor any rent compensation was paid.

3. The learned Single Judge, by the order impugned, held that the relevant land of the writ petitioners was requisitioned by the State under the Act of 1948 and the requisition proceeding lapsed without making payment of rent compensation to the petitioners. Admittedly, the relevant land is still in the possession of the Sainthia Municipality. The learned Judge observed that, having already taken possession, and having handed it over to the Municipality, it is incumbent upon the State to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings under the provision of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, Act of 2013), for payment of compensation to the petitioners.

4. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the State to commence the land acquisition proceedings under the Act of 2013 and to compensate them under the said provision of law within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order. The State was, further, directed to make payment of rent compensation to the petitioners in accordance with law.

5. The appellant/Municipality contends that on October 25, 1989, the Collector, Birbhum issued a Form requisitioning the relevant land under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 , and the Chairman of the Municipality deposited a sum of Rs.80,555/- with the Treasury. Subsequently, following a letter from the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Birbhum dated November 9, 1989, possession was taken by the Municipality and a certificate of possession was issued on November 16, 1989, for construction of a children’s park. The Municipality argues that the writ petition, filed after a lapse of 20 years, is not maintainable, especially given the absence of any explanation for the delay.

6. It has been argued by the Municipality that Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to any new cause of action to question the legality of a concluded proceeding of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013 i.e. January 1, 2014. It does not receive stale and time-barred claims and does not re-open concluded proceedings, nor allows land owners to question the legality of the mode of taking possession to re-open proceedings or mode of deposition of compensation in the Treasury. It has been submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the appellant/Municipality had deposited the admissible amount as directed by the Land Acquisi