[ad_1]
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dilip Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen
WPA 15041 of 2024
Dilip Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Lalratan Mandal
Mr. Dilip Kumar Sadhu
For the State : Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay
Mr. Subhasis Bandyopadhyay
Mr. Priyabrata batabyal
Heard on :: 17.07.2025
Judgment on : 17.07.2025
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:
1. The affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit-in-reply as filed today
on behalf of the respondent nos. 3, 5 and 9 and the writ petitioner
respectively are taken on record.
2. This Court has heard Mr. Mandal, learned advocate for the writ
petitioner and Mr. Batabyal, learned advocate appearing on behalf
of the respondent/State duly led by Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned
senior government advocate.
2
3. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for
issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the
respondents/authorities, more specifically, against the respondent
no. 9 herein for quashing and/or rescinding and/or cancelling the
order dated 15.02.2024 whereby and whereunder the said
respondent no. 9/authority came to a finding that the present writ
petitioner are not entitled to compensation in terms of the provision
of Act XXX of 2013 and it has been further held that the writ
petitioner is entitled to consideration as per direct land purchased
policy.
4. At the time of hearing, Mr. Mandal, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of
this Court to Page Nos. 23 to 25 of the instant writ petition, being a
copy of the representation dated 22.12.2022 as submitted by the
writ petitioner with the respondent no. 9/authority.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Mandal that from the copy of the said
representation, it would reveal that it is the grievance of the writ
petitioner that subsequent to publication of a notice under Section
4(1a) of the Act II of 1948, the writ petitioner’s predecessor-in-
interest was served with a notice under Section 5(3) of the Act II of
1948 in connection with L.A. Case No. 86 of 1973-74 but till date,
no compensation has been disbursed either in favour of the writ
petitioner and/or their predecessor-in-interest.
3
6. Drawing attention to Section 7A of the Act II of 1948, it is further
submitted by Mr. Mandal that the respondent no. 2/authority did
not make award under Section 7(2) of Act II of 1948 within the
stipulated period i.e., within the period of three years from the date
of publication of notice under Section 4(1a) of the Act II of 1948
and, therefore, the notice as issued under Section 4(1a) stood
lapsed consequently, the requisition and acquisition proceeding as
initiated by the respondents/authorities in respect of the land of
the writ petitioner stood vitiated.
7. It is submitted by Mr. Mandal that such factum was placed before
the respondents/authorities under cover of the said representation
dated 22.12.2022 and since such representation was not
considered, the writ petitioner had to approach this Court in an
earlier round of litigation by filing WPA 15373 of 2017.
8. Drawing attention to Page Nos. 27 and 28 of the instant writ
petition, it is submitted by Mr. Mandal that by an order dated
19.12.2022, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court while disposing WPA
15373 of 2017 directed the respondent no. 9/authority herein to
consider the aforementioned representation dated 22.12.2022 as
submitted by the writ petitioner in accordance with law.
9. It is further submitted that in compliance of the said order dated
19.12.2022, the reasoned order under challenge is passed. It is
further submitted that the respondent no. 9/authority while
4
passing the reasoned order has failed to visualize the true
implication of the provision of Section 7A of the Act II of 1948 vis-à-
vis to the provision of Section 9(3A) and (3B) of the Act I of 1894.
10. It is further submitted by Mr. Mandal that the instant writ petition
is absolutely identical with the case as involved in WPA 17757 of
2024 (Sadhan Narayan Kundu & Ors. Vs. The State of West
Bengal & Ors.) as disposed of by this Court by the judgment dated
20.05.2025. It is thus submitted by Mr. Mandal that appropriate
relief/reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioner in terms of the
prayers made in the instant writ petition.
11. Per contra, Mr. Batabyal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of
the respondents/State in course of his submission draws attention
of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition as submitted on behalf of
the respondent nos. 3, 5 and 9 and as has been affirmed on
10.03.2025. It is submitted by Mr. Batabyal that from page no. 5
of the said affidavit it would reveal that the possession of the
relevant plot was taken on 07.08.1973 pursuant to a notice under
Section 3(1) of Act II of 1948 and thereafter notice under Section
4(1a) of Act II of 1948 was published on 08.06.1979.
12. It is further submitted by Mr. Batabyal that the adequate payment
could not be disbursed to the writ petitioner and/or their
predecessors in interest on account of non-placement of fund by
the requiring body. It is further submitted by Mr. Batabyal that it
5
is the specific case of the respondents/State that the writ petitioner
is entitled to get compensation as per Direct Purchase Policy.
13. Placing his reliance upon the reported decision of Indore
Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. reported in
(2020) 8 SCC 129 it is argued by Mr. Batabyal that in view of the
proposition of law as decided in the case of Indore Development
Authority (supra) the case of the writ petitioner does not come
under the purview of Section 24 of Act XXX of 2013 and, therefore,
there cannot be any justification to hold that the order under
challenge is contrary to the law.
14. It is further submitted by Mr. Batabyal that in the reported decision
of Union of India and Anr. vs. Subhash Chander Sehgal and
ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1059 the same proposition
of law has been enunciated adopting the findings of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority. It is
thus submitted by Mr. Batabyal that it is a fit case for dismissal of
the instant writ petition.
15. This Court has meticulously gone through the entire materials as
placed before this Court. This Court has given its due
consideration over the submissions of the learned advocates for the
contending parties.
16. For effective adjudication of the instant writ petition this Court
proposes to look to the relevant portions of the judgment dated
6
20.05.2025 in WPA 17757 of 2024 (Sadhan Narayan Kundu & Ors.
Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) as passed by this Court. The
relevant portion of the case of Sadhan Narayan Kundu (supra) is
quoted hereinbelow:
“21. On careful consideration of the entire materials as
placed before this Court and after hearing the learned
advocates for the contending parties it appears to this
Court that from page no.23 of the instant writ petition it
would reveal that in respect of the writ petitioner’ land,
particulars of which has been mentioned at paragraph
no.2 of the instant writ petition, a notice under Section
4(1a) of Act II of 1948 was published in the official
gazette on July 26, 1991. As rightly argued by Mr. Pan
that as soon as such notice was published in the
official gazette, the requisitioned land of the writ
petitioner’ stood vested absolutely with the State under
Section 4(2) of Act II of 1948.
22. It is undisputed that on account of such acquisition,
the writ petitioner were not disbursed with any
compensation. This Court has noticed that by virtue of
the Amendment Act of 1994 the validity of the Act II of
1948 was extended till 31.03.1994. However, by the
self same Amendment Act, on and from 01.04.1994 the
power of requisition under Section 3 of the Act II of
1948 was taken away. On perusal of the amended
provision of Section 7A of Act II of 1948 it reveals that
collector was empowered to make an award under
Section 7(2) of Act II of 1948 within the period of three
years from the date of publication of the notice under
7
Section 4(1a) and in the event such award is not made
within the said period, the said notice under Section
4(1a) would lapse. The proviso of Section 7A of Act II of
1948 further mandates that in the event the
aforementioned notice have been published more than
two years before the commencement of the Amendment
Act of 1994, the award shall have to be made within a
period of one year from the date of commencement of
the said Amendment Act.
23. On perusal of the entire materials as placed before
this Court, this Court has got no iota of doubt that on
account of non-publication of the award within the
stipulated period as mentioned in Section 7A of Act II of
1948 the notice as published under Section 4(1a) of Act
II of 1948 lapsed in terms of the provision of Section 7A
of the said Act of 1948. Consequently, on account of
such lapse of notice the vesting under Section 4(2) of
Act II of 1948 got vitiated.
24. At this juncture if I look to the provisions of Section
9(3A) and (3B) of Act I of 1894 it appears that it is the
legislative intent that in respect of land requisitioned
and acquisitioned under Act II of 1948, the Collector
shall serve notice to all such persons known or
believed to be interested in any such land for the
purpose of determination of the award under Section
11 of Act I of 1894. The first proviso of Section 9 (3B) of
Act I of 1894 also postulates that the date of
publication of notice under Section 4 (1a) of Act II of
1948 would be the date of reference for the purpose of
determining the value of such land under Act I of 1894.
8
As noticed earlier that since the notice as has been
published under Section 4(1a) of Act II of 1948 lapsed,
the collector cannot determine the value of the
acquisitioned and requisitioned land under Act II of
1948 on the basis of the date of publication of such
lapsed notice. Undoubtedly, no award has also been
made under Section 11 of Act I of 1894 in respect of
requisitioned and acquisitioned land pursuant to the
notice as has been annexed at page no.23 of the
instant writ petition since no notice under Section 9(3B)
the Act I of 1894 was served upon the writ petitioner.
25. …………………………….
26. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and in
view of the proposition of law as enunciated in the
case of Mahadeb Kahan (supra) this Court holds that
the justice would be sub-served if the respondent no.3
is directed to initiate proceeding for acquiring land of
the writ petitoners particulars of which have been
mentioned in paragraph 2 of the instant writ petition
as per the provision of the said Act of 2013 and to
complete such acquisition proceeding within a
stipulated time.”
17. Keeping in mind the observation as made by this Court in the case
of Sadhan Narayan Kundu (supra) if I look to the factual aspects
of this case it reveals to this Court that the instant writ petition is
more or less identical with the case of Sadhan Narayan Kundu
(supra).
9
18. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Mandal that in terms of the provision
of Section 7A of Act II of 1948 since no award has been passed by
the respondent no. 2/authority within a period three years from the
date of publication of notice under Section 4(1a) that is within three
years from 08.06.1979 this Court has got no other alternative but
to hold the said notice under Section 4 (1a) in connection with the
land of the writ petitioner lapsed. Consequently, on account of
such lapse of notice the vesting under Section 4(2) of Act II of 1948
got vitiated in respect of the land of the writ petitioner.
19. This Court has also occasioned to go through the provisions of
Sections 9 (3A) and (3B) of Act I of 1894. It appears to this Court
that the aforementioned Sections 9 (3A) and (3B) of Act I of 1894
has got no manner of application, in view of the fact that notice as
published under Section 4(1a) of Act II of 1948 have already lapsed.
20. This Court must not be unmindful that in the case of Sadhan
Narayan Kundu (supra) this Court directed the
respondents/authorities to initiate the proceeding for acquiring
land of the writ petitioner in terms of the provisions of Act XXX of
2013 in view of the situation as mentioned in the said judgment
which is also identical with the instant writ petition.
21. In order to appreciate the argument of Mr. Batabyal this Court
proposes to look to the provision of Section 24 of Act XXX of 2013
which is quoted hereinbelow in verbatim:
10
“24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of
1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain
cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings
initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of
1894),-
(a) where no award under Section 11 of the
said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then,
all provisions of this Act relating to the
determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said Section 11 has
been made, then such proceedings shall continue
under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition
Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings
initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where
an award under the said Section 11 has been made
five years or more prior to the commencement of this
Act but the physical possession of the land has not
been taken or the compensation has not been paid the
said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and
the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall
initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition
afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made
and compensation in respect of a majority of land
holdings has not been deposited in the account of the
beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the
notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said
11Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of
this Act.”
22. On careful consideration of the aforementioned legislative mandate
it appears to this Court that Section 24 takes care of the under
mentioned two situation in case of land acquisition proceeding
initiated under Act I of 1894 namely;
(i) where no award under Section 11 of Act I of 1894 has been
made then all provisions of Act XXX of 2013 would apply in
determining the compensation;
(ii) where an award under Section 11 has been made then such
proceeding shall continue under the provisions of the Act I
of 1894.
23. Section 24(2) of Act XXX of 2013 further mandates that in case of
land acquisition proceeding initiated under Act II of 1894 where an
award under Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to
the commencement of the Act XXX of 2013 but physical possession
of land has not been taken and the compensation has not been
paid then the said proceeding would be deemed to have been
lapsed and thereafter the appropriate Government shall have to
initiate proceeding land acquisition in accordance with the said Act
of 2013.
12
24. It thus appears to this Court that the facts and circumstances as
involved instant writ petition do not fall under any of the categories
as mentioned in Section 24 of Act XXX of 2013 since this Court has
already come to a finding that in terms of the provision of Section
7A of Act II of 1948 the land acquisition proceeding as has been
initiated in respect of the land of the writ petitioner has already
been vitiated.
25. This Court has meticulously gone through the two reported
decisions as cited from the respondents/State that is the case of
Indore Development Authority (supra) and Subhash Chander
Sehgal (supra). In considered view of this Court the said reported
decision have not dealt with the factual situation as involved in the
instant writ petition.
26. This Court thus finds that the aforementioned two reported
decisions as cited from the side of the respondents/State are
distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant
writ petition.
27. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court thus finds
sufficient merit in the instant writ petition.
28. Consequently, WPA 15041 of 2024 is hereby allowed.
29. Consequently, the order under challenge dated 15.02.2024 as
passed by the respondent no. 9/authority is hereby quashed.
13
30. Consequently, the respondent no. 9 is hereby directed to take
appropriate steps for calculating the compensation for acquisition
of the land of the present writ petitioner, particulars of which has
been mentioned in paragraph no. 3 of the instant writ petition, as
per the provisions of the Act XXX of 2013 and to complete such
proceeding within 120 working days from the date of
communication of the server copy of this order and to pay just
compensation to the writ petitioner within four weeks thereafter.
31. Liberty is given to the learned advocate-on-record for the writ
petitioner to communicate the server coy of this order to the
respondent no. 9.
32. The respondent no. 9 is directed to act on the basis of the server
copy of this order.
33. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to
the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)
Item no. 9
Sourav Banerjee/
Suvayan Ghosh
A.R. (Court)s
[ad_2]
Source link