Introduction

The case of Bimal Kanti Saha v. National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) & Ors. was adjudicated by the Calcutta High Court on May 19, 2023. This case was addressed under the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction and brought forth by multiple petitioners challenging the acquisition of their land by the government authorities for the construction of road and bridge infrastructure associated with National Highway 31.

The key issue revolved around the legitimacy of the land acquisition process under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, and whether subsequent purchasers of the land could contest the acquisition proceedings. The parties involved included several individuals who had purchased plots from the original owner, Smt. Vidya Devi Agarwala, and the respondents represented by the National Highway Authority of India.

Summary of the Judgment

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, affirming that post-vesting purchasers do not possess the standing to challenge land acquisition proceedings initiated under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. The court held that since the acquisition process was completed by duly paying compensation to the original landowner and vesting the land in the government, subsequent purchasers could not contest the acquisition on any grounds.

The petitioners argued that the notice of requisition under section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act had not been effectively executed, and thus, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. They sought redress under section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. However, the court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the 2013 Act did not apply to acquisitions carried out under the 1948 Act and that the acquisition process was lawfully completed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively relied on precedents from the Supreme Court of India, including:

• Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority v. Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society & Others (2018) – This case discusses the modalities of taking possession of vested land by the State.
• Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Others (2020) – This case establishes that post-vesting purchasers lack the standing to challenge acquisition proceedings.
• Shiv Kumar & Another v. Union of India & Others (2019) and V. Chandrasekaran & Another v. Administrative Officer & Others (2012) – These cases reinforce the principle that subsequent purchasers cannot challenge the validity of acquisition on the grounds that the title does not confer upon them any rights against the State.

These precedents collectively support the stance that once the state completes the acquisition by compensating the original owner and vesting the land, subsequent transactions do not grant the new owners standing to challenge the acquisition.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on distinguishing between acquisitions under different legislative frameworks. Specifically:

• Applicability of the 2013 Act: The court clarified that section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 pertains solely to acquisitions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and is inapplicable to those under the 1948 Act.
• Post-Vesting Purchasers: The judgment emphasized that individuals who purchase land after its acquisition and vesting do not possess the requisite title to challenge the acquisition. The acquisition process is considered complete upon the payment of compensation to the original owner and vesting of the land in the government.
• Completion of Acquisition Proceedings: The court noted that acquisition was finalized with the publication of the notice under section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act and the disbursal of compensation, irrespective of whether physical possession was taken at that time.

The court further differentiated the provisions of the 1948 Act from those of the 1894 Act (governed by the 2013 Act), thereby nullifying the petitioners' reliance on certain precedents which dealt with other legislative contexts.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the principle that post-vesting purchasers have limited standing to challenge land acquisition processes, solidifying the government's authority in land reclamation for public purposes. It delineates the boundaries of legal redress for individuals who acquire land subsequent to the original acquisition and compensation.

Future cases involving challenges to land acquisition will likely reference this judgment to affirm that only parties with direct ties to the acquisition process (typically the original owners) hold the standing to contest such proceedings. Additionally, it underscores the importance of timely legal action by potential aggrieved parties, given the court's attention to delays in filing petitions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Post-Vesting Purchaser: An individual who purchases property after the land has been officially acquired and vested in the government.

Vesting: The process by which ownership of land is officially transferred to the government following acquisition.

Section 4(1a) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948: A provision that outlines the notification process for requisitioning land for public purposes.

Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: A section that addresses the lapse of acquisition proceedings under certain conditions, applicable only to acquisitions made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Conclusion

The Bimal Kanti Saha v. NHAI judgment serves as a pivotal reference point in land acquisition jurisprudence, clarifying the limited standing of post-vesting purchasers in challenging acquisition processes. By delineating the applicability of different legislative frameworks and reaffirming established precedents, the Calcutta High Court has reinforced the principle that only those directly affected by the acquisition (primarily original landowners) possess the legal capacity to contest such actions.

This decision not only provides clarity to the stakeholders involved in land acquisition but also ensures that infrastructural developments essential for public welfare can proceed without undue legal impediments from subsequent property transactions. The judgment underscores the necessity for prospective purchasers to exercise due diligence and understand the legal implications of acquiring vested lands.