Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Calcutta High Court Dismisses Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Compensation, Affirms Tribunal's Judgments

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court, comprising Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen and Hon’ble Justice Chitta Ranjan Dash, has dismissed a series of appeals filed by Bharat Petroleum challenging the compensation awarded in land acquisition cases. The court affirmed the judgments and decrees passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, emphasizing that the appellants were not entitled to notice under Section 8(2) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948.

Delivering the judgment, Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen stated, "The appellants have failed to raise objections before the Land Acquisition Collector during the compensation assessment process. As per Section 8(2) of the 1948 Act, the service of notice is restricted to the Collector when objections are raised regarding the amount of compensation. Therefore, the present appellants, being the requiring body, are not entitled to notice in the land acquisition cases."

The appeals revolved around the increase in the value of the acquired land, as determined by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, which the appellants deemed unreasonable. They argued that the tribunal had erred in relying on certain exhibits during the assessment process. However, the court found that the reliance on exhibits was justified as they provided a clear picture of the prevailing land valuation on the day of acquisition.

Furthermore, the court noted that the appellants' reliance on the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was misplaced, as the present cases were governed by the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. The court distinguished the cited decisions and ruled that the appellants had not obtained the necessary leave from the court before filing the appeals, rendering them defective.

The judgment reaffirms the principle that the Land Acquisition Tribunal's decisions should be respected unless there is a clear error of law or fact. The ruling will have significant implications for land acquisition cases and sets a precedent for the interpretation of the relevant provisions under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948.

The court's decision has also granted the appellants the liberty to withdraw the remaining deposited amount, along with interest, from the office of the Learned Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the legal procedures and obtaining the necessary permissions before filing appeals.

Date of Decision: 13th June 2023

Bharat Petroleum  VS  Md. Sayeedul Islam Mir and Anr.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Bharat-Gas-Vs-Sayeedul-Islam-13June-23-Cal-HC1.pdf"]

Latest Legal News