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

3. The writ petition has been keenly contested by the State respondents by filing affidavit-in-opposition contending, inter alia, as follows. (i) As per records the land measuring 4.58 acres mentioned in paragraph no. 5(a) of the affidavit was requisitioned under the provisions of West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act-II of 1948) on 22nd April 1988 for the purpose of protection work to the left bank of river Fulhara and Excavation at pilot channel to induce cut-off at Debipur in LA Case no. 40/1987-88. 4 (ii) The possession was handed over to the Requiring Body i.e. Executive Engineer, Mahananda Embankment Division, Malda on 6th May, 1988. (iii) An estimate amounting to Rs.65,952/-was prepared on 22nd June, 1988 and 80% advance payment as compensation was approved by the Collector, Malda on 28th March, 1989. (iv) Notice under section 4(1A) of the Act-II of 1948 was not published as the said Act was repealed with effect from 31st March,

1997. The case was drawn up as a proceeding under Section 9(3A) of the West Bengal Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997 for finalisation. (v) The payment of the case was kept pending for finalisation as Special Leave Petitions were pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (vi) A deemed lapse of land acquisition proceeding under Section 24(2) take place where due to inaction of the authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, possession of the land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In the present case, the possession of the land has been taken and the compensation has been declared and approved by the Collector. Hence there cannot be deemed lapse of proceedings. (vii) In the light of the above, the State-respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Mr. Debojyoti Basu, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the land in question was acquired by the State Government 5 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 hence are therefore entitled to compensation in terms of Section 24 of the Act of 2013. There is 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.

5. 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 acquisition proceedings. The acquired land has absolutely vested with the State. 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