2026 Supreme(Cal) 114

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Champabati Bera And Ors. – Petitioners 
Versus 
The State of West Bengal And Ors. - Respondents
WPA 15687 of 2025
Decided On : 06-05-2026

The state cannot deprive citizens of property without due process of law. When land is utilized for public purposes without formal acquisition or payment, the state is obligated to pay compensation, and the claim for such payment is not defeated by delay if the cause of action is continuous.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 300A - Right to property - Deprivation without authority of law - Prohibition against executive fiat - Obligation to pay fair compensation when land is utilized for public purpose.

(B) Doctrine of Delay and Laches - Applicability in land acquisition - When cause of action is continuous, delay does not extinguish a fundamental right to compensation - Court should exercise discretion to uphold constitutional guarantees over technical considerations - State cannot perfect title through adverse possession against its citizens.

(C) Statutory Interpretation of Temporary Statutes - Expiry of requisition statutes by efflux of time - When acquisition proceedings fail to follow due process, the state cannot escape liability by citing expiration of repealed laws - Obligation to conduct proceedings under the extant land acquisition regime. (Paras 15, 17, 21, 28, 34)

Facts of the case:
Private land was taken over under a requisition statute for public infrastructure, but no further acquisition notification was issued, and no compensation was ever provided. Despite the passage of several decades, the land was continuously possessed and utilized by state authorities. Owners filed a writ petition seeking compensation, while the state challenged the maintainability of the claim, arguing significant delay and laches on the part of the landowners.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the state had failed to comply with statutory requirements for acquisition, rendering the possession unlawful and in violation of constitutional rights. It was held that where the state exercises executive power to deprive an individual of property without a valid legal mechanism, it cannot hide behind technical pleas of delay. The court affirmed that the right to receive compensation is an inherent obligation of a welfare state.

Issues: The main issues were whether a claim for compensation is maintainable after years of delay and whether the state is obligated to provide payment under current acquisition laws when previous statutory proceedings had lapsed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the state is constitutionally bound to provide just compensation where private property is utilized for public interest. Even in the presence of delay, substantial justice takes precedence over technical bars, particularly when the state failed to follow due process. As the earlier temporary statutes had expired, the state is required to initiate fresh proceedings under the current governing law to ensure a lawful transition of ownership and payment of compensation.

Result: Petition allowed.