No payout yet for land ‘forcibly’ acquired in 1970s: Calcutta High Court flays govt, orders fresh acquisition procedures

Shocks conscience: Court

• The Calcutta High Court stated that the manner in which the petitioner has been deprived of his property without legal sanction shocks its conscience.
• The claim of the petitioner is found to be sustainable by this court in view of the undisputed factual position.
• This court is, therefore, inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner in order to promote justice.
• Article 300A of the Constitution of India states that no person can be deprived of his property, save by authority of law, the Calcutta High Court stated.
• The power to acquire land falls within the purview of eminent domain of the state and the land acquisition laws provide a complete mechanism for deprivation of property of a person in accordance with law.
• Utilisation of a property without payment of fair compensation to the land owner(s) is in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution.
• If the property of a citizen has been utilised for a public purpose, the state is obliged to pay fair compensation to such a landowner in accordance with law.

Land requisitioned in 1975-76

The dispute traces back to land requisition proceedings initiated in 1975-76 under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, for the construction of the Sabong-Mohar ODR road in Paschim Medinipur district.

The petitioners claimed ownership over a land patch at Mouza Bural under the Sabong Police Station. According to court records, possession of the land was taken over by authorities on February 22, 1978 and handed to the requiring body for the public project.

However, despite using the land permanently for the road, the state never issued a notification under Section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act, a mandatory legal step required for the acquisition of requisitioned land. No compensation award was ever passed either.

The landowners repeatedly sought compensation, including through a representation made in October 2004. Eventually, they approached the Calcutta High Court in 2017, leading to directions for the special land acquisition officer to examine their claim.

Authorities admitted compensation never paid

• Pursuant to earlier court directions, the special land acquisition officer passed an order on May 18, 2018, acknowledging that the petitioners’ land had indeed been requisitioned and possession had been handed over to the road authorities.
• The officer also recorded that the petitioners were entitled to compensation.
• But the officer stated that since both the 1948 Act and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had already been repealed, authorities were unable to process compensation under those laws.
• Subsequently, in March 2020, the superintendent engineer of the State Highway Planning Circle requested the district magistrate to submit estimates for payment of compensation through the state’s direct purchase policy.

State raised delay

Opposing the petition, the state argued before the Calcutta High Court that the landowners had approached the court after an “inordinate delay” of several decades despite being aware that possession had been taken in 1978-79.

The state also contended that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 could not be applied retrospectively to land proceedings initiated under the 1948 Act.

Relying on Supreme Court rulings concerning delay in service disputes, the state counsel argued that the writ petition should be dismissed on grounds of laches alone.

Delay can’t defeat property rights

The Calcutta High Court rejected the state’s defence, distinguishing service law precedents from cases involving deprivation of property without lawful acquisition.

It relied heavily on Supreme Court decisions, including Vidya Devi v State of Himachal Pradesh, Sukh Dutt Ratra v State of Himachal Pradesh and Tukaram Kana Joshi v MIDC, all of which recognised that the state cannot retain private land indefinitely without following due process or paying compensation.

The Calcutta High Court reiterated that Article 300A of the Constitution protects citizens from being deprived of property except by authority of law.

“If a person is deprived of his property except by due process of law, the State cannot be allowed to take shelter under the doctrine of delay and laches,” the court held.

The judge observed that the petitioners’ grievance represented a “continuing cause of action” because compensation had never been paid despite permanent utilisation of the land for a public purpose.

1948 requisition law expired in 1997

• The judgment contains an extensive analysis of the now-defunct West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948.
• The Calcutta High Court noted that the law was a temporary statute that ultimately ceased to operate after March 31, 1997. Under that framework, requisition and acquisition were distinct legal stages. Mere requisition under Section 3 did not transfer ownership permanently unless acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1a) were completed.
• In the petitioners’ case, no Section 4(1a) notification was ever issued before the statute expired. Consequently, the requisition itself lapsed with the expiry of the Act.
• The Calcutta High Court further explained that the State still had an opportunity to revive acquisition proceedings through Section 9(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after amendments introduced in 1997. But no such notice was ever issued before the 1894 Act itself was repealed following enactment of the 2013 land acquisition law.

Fresh acquisition ordered under 2013 law

Allowing the writ petition, the Calcutta High Court directed the state authorities to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the 2013 land acquisition law and complete the process, including payment of compensation, within four months from receipt of the order.