Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

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