CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

declaration. The writ petitioners claim that the entire acquisition proceeding stood lapsed by operation of law and since the property of the petitioners have been utilised, the respondent authorities should be directed to initiate a fresh proceeding for acquisition of the said lands as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the 2013 Act").

3. Mr. Bera, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that a notice in Form 9 was issued to the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to appear personally or by agent on 22.01.2013 at the office of District Magistrate and Collector, 24 Parganas (N), Land Acquisition Department to state the nature of the interest in the land and the amount and particulars of any claim that the writ petitioners may wish to prefer in respect of the lands in question and any objections as to the measurement of such lands. Mr. Bera contended that the said notice was dated 11.01.2013 and it is, therefore, evident that till the date of issuance of such notice no award has been declared. By referring to Section 8 of the 1948 Act, Mr. Bera contended that after declaration under Section 6 of the 1948 Act is made the State Government may acquire the land and there upon the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “1894 Act”) shall apply. Mr. Bera contended that in view of the provisions laid down under Section 8 of the 1948 Act the time limit fixed for making an award as provided under Section 11A of the 1894 Act shall be applicable to an acquisition proceeding initiated under the 1948 Act. He submitted that since no award was made within the time limit contemplated under Section 11A of the 1894 Act, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land stood lapsed. He concluded by submitting that since the lands of the petitioners have been utilised, the State Government should be directed to initiate a proceeding for acquisition of the lands in question in accordance with the provisions laid down under the 2013 Act.

4. Mr. Bera placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and Others vs. Aziman Bibi and Others reported at (2016) 15 SCC 710 in support of his contention that where land has been utilised for the public purpose and the acquisition proceeding stood lapsed, the proper course is to initiate fresh acquisition proceeding. Mr. Bera also placed reliance upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Narendra Janardan Mhatre vs. State of Maharashtra reported at AIR Online 2019 Bom 3001 in support of his contention that an award cannot be said to have been made if the same was neither signed nor filed under Section 12 of the 1894 Act by the Land Acquisition Officer.

5. Mr. De learned advocate appearing for the State seriously disputed the contentions of Mr. Bera. He contended that since notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the 1948 Act was made and the original owner i.e., predecessor-in-interest namely, Anukul Chandra Ghosh was paid compensation to the tune of 80% of the land value, the acquisition proceeding did not lapse. He further contended that the writ petitioners are only entitled to the balance compensation to the extent of 20% of the land value.

6. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed.

7. Record reveals that a notice dated 11.01.2013 in Form A was issued under 1948 Act to the occupiers of the land and other persons known or believed to be interested in it or to be entitled to act for persons so interested. From the said notice it is evident that 4.9500 acres more or less of land situated in Mouja Beleghata JL no. 3 under P.S. Baranagar in the District of 24 Parganas (N) are to be taken by the Government for settlement of immigrants under the 1948 Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the 1948 Act was published on 01.5.1980. It further appears from the said notice that the plots of land being Dag Nos. CS Plot No. 3074 – Entire, CS Plot No. 3077 – Part, CS Plot No. 3083 – Entire, CS Plot No. 3085 – Entire and CS Plot No. 3075 – Part were involved in the declaration published under Section 6 on 1.5.1980. In course of hearing of the writ petition on

19.07.2024, Mr. Bera restricted his claim for compensation in respect of the aforesaid plots of land only.

8. The issue that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the acquisition proceeding initiated by issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the 1948 Act and declaration under Section 6 of the Said Act had lapsed.

9. The 1948 Act does not provide for a time limit within which the Collector shall make an award. Section 8 of the 1948 Act states that after making a declaration under Section 6, the State Government may acquire the land and there upon the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall apply. Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was added to this statute in September, 1984. Section 11A of the 1894 Act provides that Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceeding for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. The proviso thereto states that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement.

10. In Aziman Bibi (supra) the declaration was published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after noting that the said Amendment Act came into force on 24.09.1984 held that in terms of the proviso an award in respect of the acquisition in the said reported case could have been made till September, 1986, by latest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after noting that no such award was made till September, 1986 or at any time even thereafter till 2011 held that the net effect is that the entire process commencing with the publication of the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 had lapsed.

11. Now turning back to the facts of the case on hand, this Court finds that the declaration under Section 6 of the 1948 Act was published on 01.05.1980. In the light of Section 8 of the 1948 Act, the provisions laid down under Section 11A of the 1894 Act shall be applicable. Since the declaration has been published on 01.05.1980 i.e., before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 the said award ought to have been made within a period of two years from the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 which came into force on 24.09.1984. In the case on hand no award was made within a period of two years from the commencement of Section 11A or at any time even thereafter. This Court, therefore, holds that the entire acquisition proceeding commencing with the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the 1948 Act and declaration under Section 6 of the 1948 Act had lapsed.

12. Since the entire acquisition proceeding stood lapsed by operation of law, the payment of compensation to the tune of 80% of the land value to the original owner of the land in question, if any, is of no relevance and cannot save the lapsing of such proceeding.

13. It is not in dispute that the lands of the petitioner have been utilised for the purpose for which the declaration under Section 6 of the 1948 Act was published. Therefore, the State should be directed to take steps to initiate fresh acquisition proceeding in accordance with the relevant statute and to determine the compensation in accordance with law.

14. There is, however, no quarrel to the proposition of law laid down in Narendra Janardan (supra) that an award cannot be said to be made unless the same is signed and filed under Section 12 of the 1894 Act. However, the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand.

15. For all the reasons as aforesaid the writ petition stands allowed. The appropriate authority of the State is directed to initiate a fresh acquisition proceeding in accordance with the relevant statute and determine the compensation in accordance with law and pay compensation to the writ petitioners, if they are entitled to. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a server copy of this order. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

16. Urgent photostat certified copies, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) (P.A.-Sanchita, Rinki)