Sale Deed Executed After Land Vests In State Confers No Title; Post-Vesting Purchaser Can’t Claim Compensation: Calcutta High Court

"Such post-vesting alienation of the property does not bind the State or the beneficiary since the post-vesting purchaser does so at his peril and has no authority to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever," Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a person who purchases land subsequent to a vesting notification under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, has no legal standing to challenge acquisition proceedings or claim compensation.

A single-judge bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh observed that such sale deeds do not confer any valid title upon the purchaser, as the property already stands vested in the State free from all encumbrances.

The primary question before the court was whether a purchaser who acquires land decades after it has vested in the State is entitled to claim compensation for its subsequent acquisition by the NHAI. The court was also called upon to determine whether a notification issued under the National Highways Act can be corrected once a declaration under Section 3D has been published.

Post-Vesting Purchasers Cannot Challenge Acquisition

The Court emphasized that once an estate vests in the State under Section 4(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition (WBEA) Act, 1953, the rights of the intermediary are abolished. Any subsequent sale by a former owner or their successors carries no legal weight. The bench noted that the petitioner purchased the plot in 2020, whereas the land had vested in the State as early as April 15, 1955, following a notification in 1954.

"The petitioner purchased the plot on 25th November, 2020 and is therefore a post-vesting purchaser. There is nothing on record to suggest that the intermediary in plot no. 2576 took steps for retaining the said plot under Section 6 of the 1953 Act."

No Title Conferred by Post-Vesting Sale Deeds

Justice Suvra Ghosh clarified the settled position of law regarding the validity of title in such transactions. The Court held that a post-vesting purchaser does not acquire a title that can be enforced against the State or a beneficiary like the NHAI. Because the vendor had no title to pass at the time of the sale in 2020, the petitioner remained an unauthorized holder rather than a lawful raiyat.

"It is trite law that a person who purchases land subsequent to a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1953 is not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever since the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him any title."

Power to Correct Notifications under General Clauses Act

Addressing the technical issue of the NHAI notification, the Court dealt with the Project Director's contention that the National Highways Act lacks a provision for correcting notifications after a Section 3D declaration. The Court pointed out that such powers are inherently available through the General Clauses Act, 1897. This allows authorities to amend or vary notifications issued under Central Acts even if the specific statute is silent on the mechanism.

"True, the 1956 Act does not provide for correction of notification issued under Section 3A of the Act. Such power is provided under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897."

Disputed Questions of Fact and Civil Remedies

The Court observed that while the petitioner’s name was initially recorded as a raiyat, this was later corrected by the Revenue Officer, and the petitioner failed to appeal that correction. The Court further noted that if the petitioner claims to have acquired an independent tenancy right under the State after the date of vesting, such a claim constitutes a "disputed question of fact" that cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition.

"In the event the petitioner claims to have acquired an independent tenancy right under the State of West Bengal after the date of vesting, he is at liberty to approach the appropriate civil forum for declaration of such right."

The High Court concluded that since the land was vested property, the petitioner’s prayer for quashing the eviction notices and demanding compensation could not be entertained. The writ petition was dismissed, affirming that the State holds superior title over vested lands regardless of subsequent private transactions.

Date of Decision: 06 May 2026