2026 Supreme(Cal) 106

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Bijoy Krishna Bera @ Bijoy Bera – Petitioner 
Versus 
The State of West Bengal And Ors. – Respondents 
WPA 15684 of 2025
Decided On : 06-05-2026

The state cannot reject a claim for land compensation based on delay and laches when property was taken without due process. Such unlawful possession creates a continuous cause of action, and the state is duty-bound to provide compensation under current prevailing acquisition laws.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 300A - Right to property - Deprivation of property without legal authority or due process is violative of constitutional rights - A welfare state cannot claim ownership or title through unlawful possession or by invoking the doctrine of delay and laches to defeat the legitimate claim for compensation. (Para 15, 21, 28, 57)

(B) Delay and Laches - Applicability in land acquisition - The doctrine of delay does not serve as an absolute bar when property is taken without due process - Where the cause of action is continuous, and the failure of the state to follow statutory procedures constitutes a recurring injustice, the court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant relief. (Para 17, 18, 24, 34)

(C) Land Acquisition - Statutory expiry and transition - Where land was requisitioned under a temporary statute that has since expired and the authorities failed to complete acquisition proceedings under subsequent prevailing acts, the state remains obligated to pay fair compensation by initiating a fresh process under the current applicable legislation. (Para 42, 49, 61, 65)

Facts of the case:
Private land was requisitioned by state authorities for a public project. Although possession was taken and utilized for the project, the state failed to conclude any formal acquisition process or pay compensation before the relevant temporary statutes expired. The landowner approached the court claiming arrears in compensation, while the state challenged the maintainability of the petition on the grounds of significant delay in seeking legal remedy.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the state's failure to follow due process in dispossessing the owner rendered the occupancy unauthorized. The court rejected the state's objection regarding delay, holding that the deprivation of property was a continuous wrong. It concluded that since previous acquisition statutes had lapsed or been repealed without completing the lawful transfer of title, the state must now initiate proceedings under the current land acquisition legal framework to ensure fair compensation.

Issues: The main issues were whether a plea of delay and laches can negate a claim for compensation regarding property forcefully taken without statutory backing and whether the state is obligated to pay compensation under the existing land acquisition laws after the expiration of preceding temporary statutes.

Ratio Decidendi: A constitutional court acts as a guarantor of citizens' liberties; therefore, the state cannot rely on administrative delays to justify the expropriation of private property without compensation. When the state possesses land without specific legal sanction, it creates a continuous cause of action, and the court must favor substantial justice over technical objections regarding limitation of time.

Result: Writ petition allowed. The authorities are ordered to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings and settle all compensation claims within four months.