Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan 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Court of Calcutta on the appellate side, the court addressed a writ petition involving the acquisition of land under outdated legislative acts, directing a fresh notification under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement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