Executing Court Cannot Go Behind The Decree To Amend Material Discrepancies In Property Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 216 CrPC | No Vested Right For Accused To Seek Alteration Of Charge; Court’s Power Is Exclusive And Discretionary: Jharkhand High Court Violation Of Examination Instructions Regarding OMR Sheets Warrants Mandatory Cancellation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Spurious Pesticides Ruin Lives: Telangana High Court Upholds Detention Of 'Insecticide Offender' For Endangering Public Order No Double Jeopardy In Service Law: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Treating Suspension Period As 'Non-Duty' After Employee Pleaded Guilty Advocates Have No Right To Call For Boycott; Any Such Call Or Obstruction Of Court Work Amounts To Contempt Of Court: Telangana High Court Failure To Establish 'Soon Before Death' Cruelty Precludes Conviction Under Section 304B IPC: Patna High Court Repeated False Police Complaints And Reckless Allegations Against Spouse Constitute Mental Cruelty Entitling Husband To Divorce: Madras High Court State Cannot Deny Arrears Of Pension Merely On Grounds Of Delay Without Considering Medical Evidence: Kerala High Court Allegations Of Continuous Sexual Harassment And Intimidation Require Trial; Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed On Plea Of Previous Enmity: Karnataka High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Locus Standi As 'Payee': Himachal Pradesh High Court Advocate-Client Privilege Does Not Grant Immunity From Investigation Into Personal Involvement In Alleged Offence: Delhi High Court Section 302 IPC | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained When Prosecution Fails To Identify Which Specific Accused Delivered Fatal Blow In Group Clash: Gujarat High Court Statutory Interest Under Section 28 Land Acquisition Act Cannot Be Denied For Delay In Filing Amendment Application: Delhi High Court Custodian Cannot Declare Property As 'Enemy Property' Based On Mere 'Ipse Dixit' Without Inquiry And Notice: Bombay High Court Arbitration Clause In Articles Of Association Operates As A Stand-Alone Contract Independent Of Section 430 Companies Act: Calcutta High Court Contumacious Disregard Of Court Orders By Advocates Must Be Addressed By Bar Council: Bombay High Court Refuses To Expunge Remarks Order 1 Rule 9 CPC | Non-Impleadment Of The State Renders Writ Petition Defective When Seeking Financial Relief Against Public Exchequer: Supreme 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