MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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.

Latest Legal News