Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana 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