When requisition proceedings under a lapsed temporary statute terminate without formal acquisition, and the property is retained for public use, the state must initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under current legislation to ensure just compensation and satisfy constitutional requirements against arbitrary deprivation of property.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of several plots of land within Mouza – Bali, JL No. 14 under Nischinda Police Station in the district of Howrah measuring about 2.87 acres. The petitioners state that the possession of the plots of land of the petitioners was taken over by passing an order under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 on September 6, 1993. Petitioners allege that no further step for acquisition of the plots of the petitioners was taken but the same has been utilised for the purpose for which it was requisitioned.

2. Mr. Bose, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that no steps for acquisition of the property under the provisions of the 1948 Act was taken. In the meantime, the life of the 1948 Act stood expired and the respondent authorities did not take any further step to acquire the said property by invoking the provisions of Section 9(3A) and/or 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997. Mr. Bose further submits that in the meantime the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stood repealed with coming into force of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with effect from January 1, 2014. Mr. Bose submits that since no award was passed during the lifetime of the 1894 Act and the property of the petitioners has been utilised by the respondent authorities for a public purpose, the respondent authorities should be directed to pay compensation to the petitioners in the manner as provided under the 2013 Act.

3. In support of such contention Mr. Bose, learned Senior Advocate, places reliance upon a judgment dated September 19, 2024 passed by this Court in WPA 7380 of 2015 in the case of Jamaluddin Momin –Vs.- State of West Bengal & Ors.

4. Mr. Mukherjee, learned AGP submits that in the meantime the compensation amount has been calculated and the amount has been received by the Collector and the amount of compensation shall be paid to the petitioners within the time limit as may be fixed by this Court.

5. Mr. Bose, learned Senior Advocate, submits that without declaring any award, the compensation amount cannot be determined and paid. He submits that the compensation amount has been determined by taking the market value of the property as on the date of taking over of possession, i.e., in the month of September, 1993, which is against the settled proposition of law.

6. The following facts are not in dispute:

7.465 acres of land was taken up for requisition under section 3(1) of the LA Act-II of 1948, in Mouza – Bally, JL No. 14 in LA Case NO. 23 (Act-II) of 1987-1988 which included 2.87 acres of land which was owned by the then M/s. Tatanagar Foundry Ltd.

The said proceeding was initiated as per requisition of the Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department, Government of West Bengal for settlement of refugees in the colony named Netaji Nagar Colony.

Notice under Section 3(1) of Act-II of 1948 was issued on September 6, 1993.

7. It is not in dispute that steps for acquisition of the land in question were not taken by issuing a notice under Section 4(1a) of Act-II of 1948 during its lifetime. It is also not in dispute that no step was taken for carrying on with the acquisition proceeding during the lifetime of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by invoking the provisions of Section 9(3A) o