Once Land Is Vested Under LDP Act, There Is No Lapse, No Going Back: Calcutta High Court Refuses Fresh Acquisition Under 2013 Act

“Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act has no application to proceedings under the LDP Act, which is a self-contained code” – Calcutta High Court Rules Vesting In 1950 Valid And Irrevocable

Calcutta High Court delivered a significant judgment in The State of West Bengal & Ors v. Abhijit Ghosh & Ors (MAT No. 137 of 2025), decisively rejecting the claim that a land acquisition proceeding initiated under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 (LDP Act) had lapsed due to the delay in making an award. The Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that once land is vested in the State under the urgency clause of the LDP Act, the acquisition process is complete and cannot be reopened or invalidated on the ground of delay under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Court categorically ruled that “the acquisition under the LDP Act is governed by its own mechanism and not subject to the time limits or consequences provided under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act.” Accordingly, the order of the Single Judge dated August 23, 2024—which had declared the acquisition lapsed and directed a fresh proceeding under the 2013 Act—was set aside.

LDP Act Is a Complete Code; LA Act Provisions Incorporated Only For Compensation

The appeal arose out of a land acquisition process initiated as far back as May 19, 1950, for settlement of immigrants. The State had issued a notification and declaration under Sections 4, 6, and 7 of the LDP Act, took possession of the land in November 1950, and paid 80% ad hoc compensation in 1956 to the landowner, Anukul Chandra Ghosh.

The heirs of the landowner later sought a fresh acquisition and compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act), contending that the original acquisition lapsed due to the delay in passing an award. They relied on Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act), which mandates an award to be made within two years of the declaration under Section 6.

Rejecting this plea, the High Court held: “The LDP Act is a self-contained code. Section 11-A of the LA Act, introduced in 1984, does not apply to acquisition proceedings under the LDP Act. Only limited provisions of the LA Act—specifically for calculation of compensation—have been incorporated by legislation by incorporation, and not by reference.”

The Court clarified that since the incorporation of Section 23 of the LA Act into the LDP Act occurred prior to the 1984 amendment (which inserted Section 11-A), the latter has no bearing on the incorporated statute. It observed:

“Subsequent amendments to the LA Act do not get imported into the LDP Act unless the LDP Act itself is amended. The LDP Act having incorporated only Section 23 of the LA Act for the purpose of determining compensation, Section 11-A does not and cannot apply.”

Possession Was Validly Taken In 1950; Vesting Is Irrevocable

A central issue in the case was whether the subsequent declarations and events post-1950 nullified the vesting of land that occurred upon taking possession.

Rejecting this contention, the Court observed: “Once possession is taken under Section 8 of the LDP Act, the land vests absolutely in the State, free from all encumbrances. There is no provision for divestment either in the LDP Act or the LA Act. The vesting is final and irreversible.”

The Court further added: “Subsequent declarations or re-notifications by the State cannot invalidate a legally completed acquisition. The issuance of fresh possession certificates or fresh declarations has no effect where vesting has already occurred by operation of law.”

The Court also dismissed the argument that the delay in paying compensation or the non-specification of land type in the possession certificate rendered the acquisition invalid. It ruled:

“Unlike Section 17 of the LA Act, there is no requirement under the LDP Act for pre-possession payment of 80% compensation. The absence of land classification in the certificate does not vitiate the vesting.”

Challenge To Acquisition Was Waived; Consistent Demand For Compensation Estops Petitioners

The respondents had argued that they never waived their right to challenge the acquisition and pointed to representations made over the years seeking compensation.

The Court, however, held that by accepting ad hoc compensation in 1956 and continuously seeking the balance compensation, both the original owner and his heirs had affirmed the acquisition, and could not now challenge its legality:

“Anukul, the predecessor-in-interest, accepted 80% compensation and consistently pursued the balance. This conduct amounts to a waiver of the right to challenge the acquisition process. The respondents cannot now do a volte face.”

It further added: “Even if there was no express waiver, the principle of estoppel by conduct applies. The acquisition having culminated in vesting and public use, there can be no reversion or fresh acquisition.”

2013 Act Not Applicable To LDP Act Proceedings; High Court Cannot Shift Valuation Date

A significant argument raised by the respondents was that the 2013 Act, particularly Section 24, should apply for determining compensation since no award had been passed.

The Court rejected this, holding: “Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act applies only to acquisition proceedings initiated under the LA Act. Since the present case is governed by the LDP Act, and not the LA Act, the 2013 Act has no application.”

Further, while the petitioners urged the Court to shift the valuation date forward to reflect present market rates, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bernard Vaz v. Govt. of Karnataka, the Bench held that such discretion is not available to the High Court:

“Bernard Vaz was decided under Article 142, which is a power exclusive to the Supreme Court. The High Court cannot shift the date of valuation set by statute, howsoever compelling the circumstances.”

Award Directed Under Section 8 of LDP Act Read With Section 23 of LA Act; Interest At 6% p.a.

Recognizing the long delay, the Court provided limited relief by directing the Collector to declare an award under Section 8 of the LDP Act, applying Section 23(1) of the LA Act to determine compensation based on the market value as on May 19, 1950. Additionally, 15% solatium under Section 23(2) and interest at 6% per annum from December 1950 till the date of the award was awarded.

“Since the LA Act stands repealed, the Collector under the 2013 Act may act as the Collector for this limited purpose. The entire exercise should be completed preferably by April 30, 2026.”

The Court clarified that while Section 23(2) of the LA Act was amended in 1984 to provide 30% solatium, the applicable provision in this case remains the 1978 amendment, which provided 15%—the year when the LDP Act last incorporated this provision.

This judgment decisively affirms that acquisitions under the West Bengal LDP Act are insulated from the operation of Section 11-A of the LA Act and the 2013 Act, except for the limited incorporation of compensation determination principles. The ruling closes the door on challenges based on “lapse” in LDP Act proceedings and reinforces the doctrine that once land is vested under a special law, the acquisition cannot be undone by delay or passage of time.

The High Court has sent a clear message: “Possession is not merely nine-tenths of the law; when taken under the LDP Act, it is the full law.”

Date of Decision: December 22, 2025