Nasim Akhtar Parvej & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

tabular statement contained in paragraph no.3 of the writ petition. 2 (ii) The plots of land mentioned in paragraph no.3 of the writ petition measuring more or less 5.03 acres were initially acquired for the purpose of construction of project work SPUR 4 at Khiderpur (14 to 15 Kilometres) in district of Malda, by the State Government and a net compensation of Rs.6,53,715/- has been awarded under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (iii) While the aforesaid compensation was pending disposal and the amount not being credited to the bank accounts of the respective land owners and the compensation amount was withheld despite passing of the award, during the interregnum period the erstwhile land owners as vendors transferred their plots to the vendees namely the petitioners herein comprising 5.03 acres by way of separate deeds of conveyance. (iv) From the aforesaid deeds of conveyance executed by the erstwhile owners, it is evident that the petitioners herein were alive of the fact that the plots of land in question were acquired land in which compensation has already been awarded which have been clearly indicated in respective deeds of conveyance.

(v) The petitioners made several representations from time to time for release of payment of the compensation amount on priority basis to the respective petitioners out of the aforesaid compensation amount. As the land has already been acquired and award passed and the land has vested with the State, hence the question of mutating the respective names in the record of rights cannot arise. 3 (vi) It has come to the knowledge of the petitioners that the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Land and Land Reforms, Refugee, Relief and Rehabilitation, L.A Branch directed the Collector, Malda to look into the prayer for land acquisition compensation in respect of the acquired plots and take necessary action. However, even after coming into force of Act of 2013 on 1st January 2014, the State Government has failed and neglected to disburse the awarded amount to the petitioners despite repeated requests.

(vii) As per provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 since the compensation amount has not been paid till date, the same has to be made in terms of Act of 2013 and not otherwise. (viii) In light of the aforesaid, the petitioners prayed for disbursement of the statutory compensation for acquisition of land in question as per provisions of Act of 2013.

Mr. Debojyoti Basu, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the land in question was acquired by the State Government for the project of construction of embankment. The plots of land in question were acquired in respect of which compensation has already been awarded but no compensation paid/disbursed. The erstwhile vendors of the petitioners, who were the owners of the land in question, have not been paid any compensation amount. The petitioners are the subsequent purchasers of the land in question and are therefore entitled to compensation in terms of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 as no compensation has been paid either to them or to their vendors. There is 4 utter violation of the Doctrine of Eminent Domain at the instance of the State Government in not making payment of the compensation in respect of the acquired land. To buttress his contention, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in U.P Jal Nigam, Lucknow Through its Chairman and Ors versus Kalra Properties (P) Ltd, Lucknow and Ors1.

On the contrary, Mr. Susovan Sengupta, learned advocate representing State-respondents at the outset submitted that in the present writ petition no challenge has been made to the notification published under Section 4(1a) of West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act-II of 1948) or the acquisition proceedings. The acquired land has absolutely vested with the State in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act-II of 1948. Once the land is vested unless expressly taken away, the vesting remains and such land cannot be conveyed or divested. The petitioners being subsequent purchasers are only entitled to compensation which their vendors are entitled to. To buttress his contention, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in V. Chandrasekaran and Another versus Administrative Officer and Others2. There is inordinate unexplained delay of 29 years in filing the writ petition pertaining to an award passed in the year 1990. Moreover, Section 24 of the Act of 2013 does not apply to the case of the petitioners since the acquisition proceedings has been initiated under Act-II of 1948. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed in State