2026 Supreme(Cal) 175

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.
Smt. Ranu Dutta & Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondent
WPA 20562 of 2025
Decided On : 28-04-2026

The requirement for serving a requisition order under the specific land acquisition legislation is directory and not mandatory; non-compliance does not render subsequent acquisition proceedings void, particularly where the challenge is made after inordinate delay and the land has already vested in the state.

Headnote:(A) Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act - Section 3(1), (2) and (3) - Section 4(1a) - Constitution of India - Article 300A - Compulsory acquisition of land - Whether service of requisition order under Section 3(2) is mandatory - Court held that reliance on higher division bench precedent clarifies that non-service of notice does not vitiate acquisition proceedings as the provision is interpreted as directory in nature. (Paras 6, 9-11, 20, 88-90)

(B) Delay and Laches - Challenge to land acquisition proceedings after several decades - Doctrine of laches applied to negate challenge where property has already vested in state free from all encumbrances - Absence of explanation for inordinate delay makes writ petition liable to be dismissed in limine. (Paras 12, 105, 107-110)

(C) Vesting of Property - Once land vests in state free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested - Title extinguished upon vesting - Possession by owner subsequent to vesting confers no rightful title. (Paras 17, 111-112, 123-124)

Facts of the case:
A petition was filed challenging the acquisition proceedings of a plot of land, requesting the release of the property from government scope. The petitioners argued that the requisition order was never served on their predecessor-in-interest, rendering all subsequent proceedings void. The state authorities contended that the land had been acquired and vested in the state over several decades ago, and the petitioners were guilty of inordinate delay and laches in approaching the court.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the property had long since vested in the state. Based on the recent binding precedent, the court held that non-service of notice under the relevant provision did not render the acquisition void. Furthermore, the court emphasized that no explanation was provided for the delay of over two decades since the government notice was published.

Issues: Whether the requirement of service of a requisition order under the Act is mandatory and whether its non-service vitiates the entire acquisition process; and whether a challenge to long-vested land acquisition is maintainable after significant delay.

Ratio Decidendi: The court followed the established position that the procedural requirement for service of notice is directory, not mandatory, and that failure to serve such notice does not invalidate the subsequent acquisition, especially when the property has already vested and the challenge is brought after long-standing delay.

Result: Petition dismissed.