Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Acquisition and Change of Land Use Legally Valid; Project to Proceed Without Hindrance – Calcutta High Court Rules on West Bengal Land Acquisition Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision dated May 9, 2024, the Calcutta High Court dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the acquisition of land and its subsequent use change from industrial to residential development in West Bengal. The Bench, comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, concluded that the acquisition and project development adhered to all statutory and procedural requirements, ruling out any relief for the petitioners.

The petitions revolved around the interpretation of key legislative frameworks including the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The primary legal contention addressed was the validity of the land acquisition for a state project concerning compensation issues and the procedural compliance required under various state acts.

The Court confirmed the validity of the acquisition process and the subsequent land use change, asserting that the modifications were in compliance with the necessary statutory provisions. The judgment noted:

Compliance with Legal Frameworks: The acquisition process complied with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and was in line with the interpretations provided by the Supreme Court concerning Section 24 of the 2013 Act. Specifically, the court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which clarified aspects of compensation and possession under the land acquisition statutes.

Change of Land Use Justified: The alteration of land use from industrial to housing development was held to be permissible under the West Bengal Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1974, and aligned with the notifications issued under the West Bengal Town and Country Planning and Development Act, 1979.

Public Interest and Development: The Court recognized the public interest in the state’s developmental project which aims to include housing, educational institutions, and infrastructural enhancements. This development was not deemed a misuse of the acquired land.

Concluding the judgment, the Court dismissed all writ petitions and lifted any interim orders that had previously stalled the project. It directed the West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HIDCO) and other relevant authorities to proceed with the project expeditiously.

This ruling is significant as it reaffirms the state’s authority in land acquisition for public purposes and clarifies the legal standing of change in land use post-acquisition under state laws.

Date of Decision: May 9, 2024

Shanti Ganatantra Sanghati Mancha and Others vs. The State of West Bengal and Others

Similar News