Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Orissa Metallurgical Industry Private … vs Santanu Santra & Ors on 1 July, 2025
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
2025:CHC-AS:1181-DB
Form No. J (2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas
M.A.T. 1248 of 2024
Orissa Metallurgical Industry Private Limited
vs.
Santanu Santra & ors.
with
M.A.T. 1483 of 2017
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Vs.
Santanu Santra
With
M.A.T. 1249 of 2024
Orissa Metallurgical Industry Private Limited
vs.
Gopa Rani Santra & ors.
with
M.A.T. 1485 of 2017
The State of West Bengal, Service through Secy, Dept of Land & Land
Revenue & Ors.
Vs.
Gopa Rani Santra
with
M.A.T. 1250 of 2024
Orissa Metallurgical Industry Private Limited
vs.
Nirmal Kumar Santra & ors.
with
M.A.T. 1484 of 2017
The State of West Bengal, service through its Secy, Dept of Land &
Land Revenue & Ors.
Vs.
Nirmal Kumar Santra
2
2025:CHC-AS:1181-DB
For the Appellants in
MAT 1248/2024
MAT 1249/2024 &
MAT 1250/2024 : Mr. Saptangshu Basu, Senior Advocate
Mr. Debrup Bhattacharjee, Advocate
Mr. R. N. Ghose, Advocate
Ms. Pritha Ghose, Advocate
Ms. Tonoya Ghose, Advocate
For the State in
MAT 1483/2017
MAT 1485/2017 &
MAT 1484/2017 : Mr. Rabindra Narayan Dutta, Advocate
Mr. Hare Krishna Halder, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. Rabindranath Mahato, Advocate
Mr. Aritra Shankar Ray, Advocate
For the Registrar of
Cooperative Society
in MAT 1248 of 2024 : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Roy, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ankit Sureka, Advocate
Mr. Biplab Das, Advocate
Mr. Partha Sarathi Pal, Advocate
Heard on : 19.06.2025 & 1.07.2025
Judgment on : 01.07.2025
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1. Six appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as the issues raised are
same and/or similar.
3
2025:CHC-AS:1181-DB
2. All appeals revolve around acquisition proceedings undertaken for the
purpose of setting up Telecon Industrial Unit.
3. Three sets of writ petitions were filed before the learned Single Judge
which resulted in the present six appeals under consideration.
4. MAT 1248 of 2024 is at the behest of the beneficiary of the acquisition
proceedings while MAT 1483 of 2017 is at the behest of the State of
West Bengal and its functionaries. Both are directed against the order
dated January 24, 2017 passed in W.P. 21821 (W) of 2016.
5. MAT 1249 of 2024 is at the behest of the beneficiary of the acquisition
proceedings while MAT 1485 of 2017 is at the behest of the State and its
functionaries and directed against the order dated January 24, 2017
passed in W.P. 21816 (W) of 2016.
6. Similarly, MAT 1250 of 2024 is at the behest of the beneficiary of the
acquisition proceedings while MAT 1484 of 2017 is at the behest of the
State and its functionaries and directed against the order dated January
24, 2017 passed in W.P. 21810 (W) of 2016.
7. Beneficiaries of the acquisition proceedings were not parties to the three
sets of writ petitions. Claiming to be aggrieved by the orders passed in
three sets of writ petitions they sought leave to appeal which was
granted. Delay in making and filing the appeals were condoned.
8. Learned advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal refers to the
impugned order and submits that, learned Single Judge, after holding
4
2025:CHC-AS:1181-DB
that possession of the plots was taken by the State and that, award was
made, erred in directing invocation of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013. He relies upon (2020) 8 Supreme Court Cases 129 [Indore
Development Authority (Lapse-5) versus Manoharlal and others]
submits that, since, the tests laid down in such decisions stand
satisfied. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
acquisition proceedings cannot be held to be lapsed. Learned Single
Judge erred in directing invocation of the Act of 2013.
9. Learned advocate appearing for the State relies upon a list of dates as
also the pleadings in the writ petition and submits that, the present writ
petition is a second challenge to the acquisition proceedings. The first
challenge of the acquisition proceedings at the behest of the writ
petitioners where they challenged the legality, validity and sufficiency of
notices issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, failed. In the
present set of challenge the writ petitioner is claiming invocation of
Section 18 of the Act of 1894. He submits that, in such context, learned
Single Judge , erred in holding that, the acquisition proceedings stood
lapsed.
10. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the beneficiary submits that, the
land was validly acquired by the State. In the acquisition proceedings
possession of the land was taken. An award was published.
5
2025:CHC-AS:1181-DB
Compensation awarded was tendered to the writ petitioners. Upon their
refusal to accept the compensation awarded the same was deposited
with the treasury. He contends that, the learned Single Judge erred in
holding that, acquisition proceeding under the Act of 1894 lapsed. He
also refers to the ratio laid down in the Indore Development Authority
(Lapse-5) (Supra) in this regard.
11. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the beneficiary submits that, writ
petitioners were well aware that the beneficiary received possession of
the land concerned. In this regard, he draws the attention of the Court
to the documents that the State produced before learned Single Judge
with regard to possession as also the documents which were produced
before the Division Bench. He submits that, the impugned order should
be set aside.
12. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that,
neither was possession taken from the writ petitioner nor was payment
of compensation made to them. In support of the contention that,
possession was not taken from the writ petitioners, he draws the
attention of the Court to the document which State produced as the
document of possession. He submits that, such document of possession
does not bear the signature of any of the writ petitioners. He submits
that, the document, is a paper transaction between the acquiring body
and the person to whom the possession was allegedly made over. He
6
2025:CHC-AS:1181-DB
relies upon various paragraphs in Indore Development Authority
(Lapse-5) (Supra) in support of his contention that a paper transaction
relating to possession is of no consequence.
13. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that,
admittedly, the writ petitioner did not receive compensation. Therefore,
he submits that, on the twine test of Indore Development Authority
(Lapse-5) (Supra) the acquisition proceedings must be held and rightly
so held, by the learned Single Judge to be lapsed. Consequently, the
direction contained in the impugned order with regard to the lapse of
the acquisition proceedings and initiation of a proceeding under the Act
of 2013 are correct.
14. In response to the query of the Court as to the right of the writ
petitioners to be allowed to canvas the issue of no possession being
taken from them and no compensation of money in terms of the award
made over to the writ petitioners, in light of the findings returned by the
learned Single Judge as recorded in the impugned order as also the
basis of the writ petition, learned advocate appearing for the writ
petitioners relies upon (2003) 9 Supreme Court Cases 606 (Banarsi
And Others versus Ram Phal). He submits that that, a plaintiff in a
suit, obtaining a decree in his favour is entitled to assail any finding,
which the Court passing the decree made, in an appeal. In this regard,
7
2025:CHC-AS:1181-DB
he draws the attention of the Court to the paragraphs 10 and 11 of such
decision.
15. Relying upon (2007) 3 Calcutta High Court Notes 708 (State of West
Bengal v. Gopal Krishna Das Adhikary) learned advocate appearing for
the writ petitioners submits that, where compensation amount is not
deposited, then, the only course open to the State was to deposit the
amount in Court.
16. In response to a query of the Court, learned advocate appearing for the
State submits that, the amount declared by the award stood deposited
with the treasury at the relevant point of time.
17. As noted above, there were two sets of writ petitions at the behest of the
writ petitioners. In the first set of writ petitions, the writ petitioners
assailed notices under Section 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894. Challenge to
such notices failed.
18. Thereafter, the writ petitioners filed the fresh writ petitions complaining
of inaction so far as provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1894 is
concerned.
19. By dint of the failure in the first set of writ petition assailing the notices
under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894 and by reason of the writ
petitioners now seeking invocation of Section 18 of the Act of 1894 with
regard to the acquisition proceedings, we are not minded to allow the
writ petitioners to rake up the issue of possession not being taken or no
8
2025:CHC-AS:1181-DB
compensation award being passed or paid to them in the present
proceedings on the principles of res judicata. Decision in the first set of
writ petitions binds the parties before on such aspects.
20. The impugned order in the three sets of writ petitions were passed on a
date prior to the delivery of Indore Development Authority (Lapse-5)
(Supra). Last paragraph of such judgment is as follows:-
“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer
the questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in
case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date
of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined
under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within
the window period of five years excluding the period
covered by an interim order of the court, then
proceedings shall continue as provided under Section
24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it
has not been repealed.
366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as “nor”
or as “and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes
place where due to inaction of authorities for five
years or more prior to commencement of the said Act,
the possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid. In other words, in case
9
2025:CHC-AS:1181-DB
possession has been taken, compensation has not
been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if
compensation has been paid, possession has not
been taken then there is no lapse.
366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a
deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of
non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2)
in case it has not been deposited with respect to
majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries
(landowners) as on the date of notification for land
acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be
entitled to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation
under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the
said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation
(in court) does not result in the lapse of land
acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with
respect to the majority of holdings for five years or
more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be
paid to the “landowners” as on the date of notification
for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the
compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the
1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that
acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to
non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court.
The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the
10
2025:CHC-AS:1181-DB
amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who
had refused to accept compensation or who sought
reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that
the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is
to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of
Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the
1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is
by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once
award has been passed on taking possession under
Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State
there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of
the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken
there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case
authorities have failed due to their inaction to take
possession and pay compensation for five years or
more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a
proceeding for land acquisition pending with the
authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of
subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to
be excluded in the computation of five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give
rise to new cause of action to question the legality of
concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24
applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
11
2025:CHC-AS:1181-DB
enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not
revive stale and time-barred claims and does not
reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners
to question the legality of mode of taking possession
to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of
compensation in the treasury instead of court to
invalidate acquisition.”
21. As noted above, it is not available to the writ petitioners to question the
so-called lack of possession being taken and the so-called lack of award
being published or compensation paid, therefore, the paragraphs
relating to the manner and mode of taking possession as deliberated
upon in Indore Development Authority (Lapse-5) (Supra) are of no
relevance.
22. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, possession of the
land was taken from the writ petitioners. The feigned ignorance of the
same in these set of writ petitions must be contrasted with their failure
is the earlier round of litigation. Therefore, such an issue is res judicata
at least between the writ petitioners and the State.
23. The writ petition in which the impugned order was passed speaks of
inaction under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. That pre supposes that
there subsists an award. Once that is accepted by the writ petitioners
themselves and after conclusive finding by a competent Court between
the same writ petitioners and the State as to possession, the ratio of
12
2025:CHC-AS:1181-DB
Indore Development Authority (Lapse-5) (Supra) stands attracted.
Therefore, the acquisition proceedings did not stand lapse.
24. Since, the acquisition proceedings did not stand lapsed, the direction
contained in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, regarding
invocation of the Act of 2013 cannot be sustained. Consequently,
direction issued by the learned Single Judge after holding that the
acquisition proceedings stand lapsed also cannot be sustained. In such
context, all such directions consequent upon the learned Single Judge
holding that the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed are set aside.
25. MAT 1248 of 2024, MAT 1483 of 2017, MAT 1249 of 2024, MAT 1485 of
2017, MAT 1250 of 2024 and MAT 1484 of 2017 are allowed without
any order as to costs. All connected applications stand disposed of.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
26. I agree.
(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)
CHC