Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Holding possession of any land of the citizen without making payment of compensation is a continuing wrong - Calcutta High Court Orders Re-notification of Acquisition Under 2013 Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment delivered by the High Court of Calcutta on the appellate side, the court addressed a writ petition involving the acquisition of land under outdated legislative acts, directing a fresh notification under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to resolve long-standing issues regarding compensation.

Legal Point Brief: The case revolved around the failure of the state to complete the acquisition process initiated under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, and the subsequent non-payment of compensation following the expiry of the Act and the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the 2013 Act.

Facts and Issues: The petitioner, Jhantu Mandal, sought restoration of land and overdue compensation for plots requisitioned in 1983 under the 1948 Act, where no acquisition award was made. The contention was centered on the non-completion of acquisition proceedings and failure to pay compensation despite the statutory amendments and repeals over the years.

Jurisdiction to Hear the Writ: The court noted the delay in filing the writ petition but justified hearing it on the grounds of "continuing wrong," citing that possession taken without compensation constitutes a perpetual source of injury, allowing judicial intervention irrespective of the delay.

Validity of Acts: The court highlighted that with the expiration of the 1948 Act and the repeal of the 1894 Act by the 2013 Act, no legal basis remained for the state to withhold the land without completing the acquisition process or paying compensation.

Direction for Re-notification: Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee ordered that the acquisition be re-notified under the provisions of the 2013 Act, emphasizing that this step was necessary to rectify the ongoing wrongs committed by failing to provide compensation to the landowner.

Reliance on Precedents: The judgment referenced several precedents emphasizing the necessity of adhering to the principles of fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition processes, particularly under the new legal framework established by the 2013 Act.

Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Collector to re-notify the acquisition in accordance with the 2013 Act and to determine and pay compensation expeditiously within six months.

Date of Decision: May 9, 2024

Jhantu Mandal -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Latest Legal News