The Calcutta High Court has held that acquisition of land by the transport department of West Bengal government for the East West Metro at Bowbazar for the Central station stood lapsed because of procedural glitches.
Justice Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya held in his order that the entire land acquisition proceedings concerning the properties stood lapsed.
The court observed that the consequences for non-publication of compensation award with in the statutory period as provided in Section 11A of Land Acquisition Act,1894,would follow in the case.
The court,in its order last week,also directed that the premises,possession of which have already been taken by the transport department on January 24,to restore possession of the petitioners within two weeks of communication of the order.
The Central Calcutta Citizens Welfare Association had filed the writ petition in 2010,challenging the proceeding for acquisition of a number of premises on B B Ganguly Street and Mohim Chandra Das Sarani for the purpose of running Metro Railway from Salt Lake Sector-V to Howrah Station under East West Metro Corridor Project by the Transport Department.
The Central station,where the East West Metro was to cross the existing Dumdum-Kabi Subhash Metro service,was scheduled to come up there.
Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Kolkata Gazette on August 27,2009.
An award determining the compensation payable to the tenants amounting to Rs 1,90,000 was published by the Collector on November 15,2011.
Since the award was not published by the Collector within the statutory period as provided under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894,the petitioners moved the petition for declaring the entire proceeding for acquisition of the premises lapsed.
Section 11A of the Act provides that the Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period,the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the said land shall lapse,the petitioners contended.
Finding that the award was not published within the period,the court held that the acquisition stood lapsed.