IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APELLATE SIDE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH W.P.A. 14267 of 2018
v/s.
National Highway Authority of India & Ors. With
W.P.A. 14270 of 2018
v/s.
National Highway Authority of India & Ors. With
W.P.A. 14278 of 2018
v/s.
National Highway Authority of India & Ors. With
W.P.A. 14282 of 2018
v/s.
National Highway Authority of India & Ors. With
W.P.A. 14283 of 2018
Rabindra Nath Biswas
v/s.
National Highway Authority of India & Ors. With
W.P.A. 14285 of 2018
v/s.
National Highway Authority of India & Ors.
1
2
With W.P.A. 14287 of 2018 Gita Chhetri (Sharma) v/s.
National Highway Authority of India & Ors. With
W.P.A. 14289 of 2018
Smt. Aishnu Nessa Dewan
v/s.
National Highway Authority of India & Ors. With
W.P.A. 14290 of 2018
Sri Munna Kumar Roy & Anr.
v/s.
National Highway Authority of India & Ors. With
W.P.A. 14657 of 2018
v/s.
National Highway Authority of India & Ors.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rabi Lal Maitra, Adv. Mr. Rajit Lal Maitra, Adv.,
For the NHAI: Ms. Manika Roy, Adv., For the State in
WPA 14267 of 2018: Md. T.M. Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. N. Chatterjee, Adv.
Ms. A. Pandey, Adv.,
For the State in
WPA 14282 of 2018: Mr. P.P. Roy, Adv. Mr. R.C. Guchhait, Adv.,
For the State in
WPA 14283 of 2018
& WPA 14287 of 2018: Mr. Jahar Lal De, Adv. Mr. Robiul Islam, Adv.
3
For the State in WPA 14285 of 2018: Mr. Jahar Lal De, Adv. Mr. R.C. Guchhait, Adv.
For the State in
WPA 14289 of 2018: Mr. Subhabrata Dutta, Adv. Mr. R.C. Guchhait, Adv.
For the State in
WPA 14290 of 2018: Mr. Jahar Lal De, Adv. Mr. Suddhadeb Adak, Adv.
Hearing Concluded on: 05.04.2023 Date: 19.05.2023
SUVRA GHOSH, J. :-
1. Since all the writ petitions involve similar issues of law and fact, they are taken up for consideration by a common judgment.
2. The petitioners purchased the plots in question from the erstwhile owner Smt. Vidya Devi Agarwala and mutated their names in respect of the same. The petitioners have been residing in the said plots upon payment of tax. Upon threat of utilisation of their land by the Government and demolition of existing structures thereon sometime in June, 2018, the petitioners learnt that an area of land measuring 1.37 acres in R.S. plot no. 530 and .38 acres in R.S. plot no. 531 has been acquired vide notification no. 472-L.A. dated 5thFebruary, 1987. The petitioners obtained a copy of notice under section 4(1a) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 demonstrating that the plots in question were acquired in terms of the notice under section 3(1) of the Act. But such notice of requisition was not given effect to and the land in question was released. The record of rights is still in the name of the erstwhile owner and the petitioners are in possession
4
of the property till date. Only rent compensation has been paid by the State respondents and compensation is yet to be disbursed. The petitioners have prayed for an order in terms of section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the authority in Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority v/s. Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society and Others reported in (2018) 8 Supreme Court Cases 215 and Indore Development Authority v/s. Manoharlal And Others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 in support of his contention.
4. Per contra, learned counsels for the State respondents have submitted that the plots in question were acquired under the Act of 1948 and both rent compensation and award have been paid to the land losers. Possession of the plots has been taken under section 3/4 of the Act of 1948 and construction of road has been completed. The petitioners being post vesting purchasers, have no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings. Also, section 24 of the Act of 2013 pertains to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and has no manner of application in the present cases. Acquisition proceedings were concluded and possession handed over to the Public Works Department on 10thJuly, 1968. The inordinate delay in approaching this Court has not been explained by the petitioners. Learned counsel has also relied upon the authority in Indore Development Authority (supra)
5
5. I have considered the submission made on behalf of the parties as well as material on record and the law on the point.
6. It is not in dispute that the plots in question were requisitioned under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 for the purpose of construction of road and bridge of National Highway 31 of the river Mahananda at Siliguri and notice under section 4(1a) of the Act of 1948 was published on 11thMarch 1987. The petitioners are admittedly subsequent purchasers who purchased the land after publication of the notification under section 4(1a) of the Act of 1948. According to the petitioners, the land was mutated in their names and they are in possession of the land all throughout. The petitioners say that the notice of requisition was not given effect to and the land was ultimately not acquired, thereby resulting in the proceedings being lapsed.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the authorities in Shiv Kumar and Another v/s. Union of India and Others reported in (2019) 10 Supreme Court Cases 229, V. Chandrasekaran and Another v/s. Administrative Officer and Others reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133 and Indore Development Authority (supra) has observed that a person who purchases land subsequent to notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever since the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him any title. Such alienation of the property does not bind the State or the beneficiary under the acquisition since the post vesting purchaser does so at his peril and has no authority to challenge the validity of the acquisition
6
proceedings on any ground whatsoever. He can at best claim compensation on the basis of his vendor's title. The same principle is applicable in case of acquisition under the Act of 1948 and the petitioners, admittedly being post vesting purchasers, cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings on any ground.
8. The land under acquisition was admittedly owned by one Vidya Devi. Pursuant to an order of this Court in a writ petition being no. 9860 (W) of 1992 passed on 22ndJanuary, 1993 and modified on 8thJuly, 1994, rent compensation was paid to the affected persons including Vidya Devi along with interest thereon and the erstwhile owner also received LA compensation on 27thJune, 1994. The said owner chose to part with the land subsequent to receipt of compensation in lieu of acquisition of the same. The process of acquisition was complete upon publication of notice under section 4(1a) of the Act and payment of compensation to the erstwhile owner and the land vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. The petitioners have primarily laid emphasis on the fact that possession of the land was not taken by the Government and the land has been mutated in their favour. The petitioners have relied upon the authority in Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority (supra) to demonstrate the modalities of taking possession of vested land by the State. The authority deals with taking of possession of acquired land by the State and entitlement of the State to release the land from acquisition proceedings by taking recourse to the provision of section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said provision deals with withdrawal from acquisition of any land
7
of which possession has not been taken. The said provision can be distinguished from the provision laid down under the Act of 1948 wherein upon publication of notice under section 4(1a) of the Act, the requisitioned land vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. The question of release from requisition under section 6 of the Act arises when any land requisitioned under section 3 is not acquired. Therefore the ratio decidendi of the authority relied upon by the petitioners is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present cases. Moreover, according to the respondents, possession of the land was handed over to the requiring body being the PWD on 10thJuly, 1968. Even at the cost of reiteration, it is recorded that since compensation has been received by the erstwhile owner of the land and the land has been vested in the State, the petitioners being post vesting purchasers are not entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever. Purchase of vested land does not confer any right, title or interest upon the petitioners and the petitioners may be deemed to be trespassers/illegal occupiers in respect of the same.
9. The petitioners have taken refuge in the authority in Indore Development Authority (supra) in claiming title in respect of the plots in question. The said authority deals with deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Act of 2013 deals with lapse of acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1894 and has no manner of application in acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1948. Even under section 24(2) of
8
the Act of 2013, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed if physical possession of the land has not been taken or compensation not paid in the event award under section 11 of the Act of 1894 has been made 5 years or more prior to the commencement of this Act. The twin requirements in this provision are possession of the acquired land being taken and compensation being paid. If possession is taken but compensation not paid there would be no lapse. Similarly, if compensation is paid and possession not taken, there would be no lapse. The requirements are cumulative and conjunctive in nature.
10. In the case in hand, since compensation was paid to the erstwhile owner Vidya Devi, the acquisition proceedings shall not lapse even in the event of not taking possession of the acquired land. Therefore the authority in Indore Development Authority (supra) does not come to the aid of the petitioners herein.
11. Acquisition proceedings was complete upon publication of notice under section 4(1a) of the Act of 1948 in the official gazette and compensation for the same has been disbursed in favour of the erstwhile owner. Therefore the question of release of the land from requisition does not arise. Mere recording of the petitioners' names in the record of rights or omission to record the plots in question in favour of the State does not ipso facto confer any right, title or interest upon the petitioners in respect thereof.
12. Last but not the least, learned counsels for the respondents have drawn the attention of the Court to the inordinate and unexplained delay made by the
9
petitioners in approaching the Court. According to the petitioners, they learnt about the requisition and acquisition upon obtaining a copy of notice under section 4(1a) of the Act of 1948 sometime in June, 2018 when the Government authorities threatened to demolish the existing structures on their land for utilisation of the land. The writ petitions being filed soon thereafter, there was no delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching the Court.
13. In the light of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the writ petitions are devoid of any merit and are liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
15. There shall however be no order as to costs.
16. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the writ petitions are deemed not to be admitted.
17. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities.
(Suvra Ghosh, J)
Comments