Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court P&H High Court Denies Pensionary Benefits for Work-Charged Employee's Widow; Declares Work-Charged Service Not Eligible for ACP or Pension Benefits Acquittal is Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Job Over Past FIR At The Bail Stage, Culpability Is Not To Be Decided; Allegations Must Be Tested During Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in SCST Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to "Secular" and "Socialist" Additions in Constitution Preamble Supreme Court Rejects Res Judicata in Land Allotment Case: Fresh Cause of Action Validates Public Interest Litigation Public Resources Are Not Privileges for the Few: Supreme Court Declares Preferential Land Allotments to Elites Unconstitutional Past antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail: Kerala High Court Grants Bail Revenue Records Alone Cannot Prove Ownership: Madras High Court Dismisses Temple's Appeal for Injunction Humanitarian Grounds Cannot Undermine Investigation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Bail in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will

High Court Reveals Terai Tea’s Compensation Claim Invalid Due to Lack of Possession Since 1972

08 September 2024 7:34 PM

By: sayum


The High Court at Calcutta has granted the review petition filed by the Union of India and the Defence Estate Officer, overturning the previous orders that mandated compensation to Terai Tea Company Limited for land acquisition. The judgment, delivered by Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, emphasized the erroneous application of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013) and upheld the Union of India’s possession rights under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act of 1894).

The dispute centers around 21.54 acres of land in Darjeeling, which was handed over to the Defence Estate Officer in 1971 for constructing residential quarters for defense personnel. Terai Tea Company Limited, claiming ownership and seeking compensation under the Act of 2013, filed writ petitions leading to the orders in question. The Union of India was not initially a party to the original writ petitions, which resulted in orders being passed without its knowledge.

The review applicants argued that they were not made parties to the writ petition or the appeal, leading to an adverse decision affecting their rights. They claimed continuous possession since 1971 and compliance with compensation directives under the Act of 1894. The applicants emphasized that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act of 1894 were valid and did not lapse, hence the application of the Act of 2013 was erroneous.

Terai Tea argued that the Act of 2013 applied, based on previous court directions and that the State Government had accepted this position during the appeal. They also contended that the renewal of their lease by the State Government, though done retrospectively, justified their claim for compensation.

The court meticulously analyzed the facts, highlighting the possession status of the Union of India since 1971 and the subsequent legal developments. The judgment stated, “The right, title, and interest of the review applicants were adversely affected by the orders under review, and such orders were passed without hearing the review applicants.” The court recognized that Terai Tea had no right to the land post-1972, invalidating their compensation claims under the Act of 2013.

 

Justice Debangsu Basak remarked, “The review applicants’ continuous possession and compliance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 negate the application of the 2013 Act. The initial failure to include the review applicants in the proceedings led to a significant oversight.”

The High Court’s decision to allow the review petition underscores the importance of due process and correct application of legal provisions in land acquisition matters. By nullifying the previous orders and affirming the Union of India’s possession rights, the judgment prevents undue financial burden on the government and sets a precedent for handling similar disputes. The decision reinforces the necessity of proper party inclusion in legal proceedings to avoid miscarriages of justice.

Date of Decision: August 1, 2024

Union of India & Anr. Vs. Terai Tea Company Limited & Ors.

Similar News