Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Chandrati Devi vs National Highway Authority Of ... on 19 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APELLATE SIDE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH
W.P.A. 14267 of 2018
Smt. Chandrati Devi
v/s.
National Highway Authority of India & Ors.
With
W.P.A. 14270 of 2018
Smt. Snehalata Majumdar
v/s.
National Highway Authority of India & Ors.
With
W.P.A. 14278 of 2018
Santosh Kumar Prasad
v/s.
National Highway Authority of India & Ors.
With
W.P.A. 14282 of 2018
Bimal Kanti Saha
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
Sudhama Prasad
v/s.
National Highway Authority of India & Ors.
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
Premlal Gupta
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
5th February, 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 10th July, 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. 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 11th March 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
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 22nd January, 1993 and modified on 8th July, 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 27th June, 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
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 10th July, 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
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
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)
