The lapse of land acquisition proceedings results in loss of title for the State; completion must adhere to the regulations set out in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act.

Re: CAN 5 of 2014 (Sec. 5)

Though there was enormous delay in filing this appeal by the State-respondents but we condone the delay in filing this appeal as we, after hearing the Learned advocates of the parties, find that an arguable case has been made out by the appellants in this appeal.

Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

The application for condonation of delaythus, stands allowed.

Let the appeal now be registered.

Re: MAT 1969 of 2013

Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the instant case.

This appeal is directed against the judgement and/or order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this court on 21st September, 2010 in W.P. No. 11988(W) of 2010. By the said order, the Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court held that the acquisition proceeding which was initiated with the issuance of the notification under Section 4 (1a) Act II of 1948 lapsed due to nonfulfillment of the condition contained in Section 7A of the said Act.

The Learned Single Judge thus, held that since the Act II of 1948 lapsed with effect from 31st March, 1997 and there being no subsisting notice under Section 4 of 1948 Act, the Land Acquisition

Collector will now have to issue notice under Section 9 (3A) of the Land Acquisition Act and complete the acquisition proceedings expeditiously as per the provisions of the said Act. Taking note of the fact that the possession of the land was taken in 1980 and there is no scope for restoration of such possession to the petitioner as the same has already been utilized, the Learned Single Judge passed an order directing the concerned authority to complete the acquisition proceedings positively within six months from the date of the order by declaring the award at the current market value, with a rider that the writ petitioner may also claim compensation for having been deprived of possession, use and occupation of and income from the land in question from 1980 till date of issuance of notice under Section 9 (3A).

The legality and/or propriety of the said order is under challenge in this mandamus appeal at the instance of the Staterespondents. Mr. Sengupta, Learned advocate appearing for the appellants tried to impress upon us that the proceeding for acquisition of the land as provided under Act II of 1948 is pari materia with the provisions contained under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act dealing with the State Government’s special powers on acquisition of land in case of urgency. To substantiate such contention, he placed before us the provisions contained in Section 11, Section 16 and Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and the provisions contained in Section 4 , Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 7A & Section 8 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 .

He further contended that once title of the landowner vests with the State Government by virtue of the notice under Section 4 (1a) of the Act II of 1948, such title of the State Government in the land so acquired, cannot be divested merely because of nonpublication of award and/or non-payment of compensation within the period prescribed under Section 7A of the said Act.

He further contends that since Act II of 1948 became inoperative with effect from 1st April, 1997, compensation can neither be assessed nor award. can now be published under the provisions of Act II of 1948. According to him such incomplete acquisition proceeding can now be completed by invoking the provisions contained in Section 9 (3B) of the Land Acquisition Act.

He has also relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. –versus- State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (1993)4 SCC, 369 to substantiate his contention that once the title of the landowner vests with the State by operation of law, under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act such vested right of the State Government cannot be divested due to non-payment of the awarded compensation within the prescribed time limit