State Cannot Use 'Delay & Laches' To Evade Compensation For Land Taken Without Authority Of Law: Calcutta High Court

"Claim for fair compensation of a land loser cannot be negated solely on the ground of delay in approaching the Court but the same should be tested on equitable principles... State cannot be allowed to take shelter under the doctrine of delay and laches, as it would amount to validation of unlawful executive behaviour," Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the State cannot deprive a citizen of their property without the authority of law and then seek to avoid paying compensation by citing "delay and laches."

A Single Judge bench of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, remains a "valuable constitutional right" under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and any forced dispossession without due process constitutes a continuing cause of action.

The petitioner’s land was requisitioned by the State of West Bengal in 1975-76 under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, for the construction of the Sabong-Mohar road. Although possession was taken in 1978 and the land was utilized, the State never published a formal notice of acquisition or passed an award for compensation. Decades later, when the petitioner sought compensation, the State resisted the claim primarily on the grounds of inordinate delay, arguing that the possession was taken nearly 50 years ago.

The primary question before the court was whether a claim for compensation for land utilized by the State can be dismissed solely on the grounds of delay and laches. The court also had to determine whether, in the absence of completed acquisition proceedings under the 1948 or 1894 Acts, the State was now liable to pay compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act).

Right to Property Protected Under Article 300A

The Court emphasized that Article 300A of the Constitution of India mandates that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law. The bench noted that this constitutional guarantee ensures the supremacy of the rule of law and prevents the State from occupying private property through mere executive fiat or "muscle power."

Court Rejects Delay As Grounds To Validate Lawlessness

The bench flatly rejected the State’s argument that the petitioner’s delay in approaching the court should disqualify him from receiving compensation. Relying on Supreme Court precedents like Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Tukaram Kana Joshi vs. M.I.D.C., the Court held that delay cannot be used to protect a State that has acted clandestinely or arbitrarily.

"If there is continuity of cause of action or the whole thing shocks the judicial conscience, then the Court should exercise the discretion more so, when no third party interest is involved."

State Cannot Arrogate Status Beyond the Constitution

Justice Bhattacharyya observed that a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot treat a landowner as a "subject of medieval India" rather than a citizen. The Court held that when substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations like delay, the cause of substantial justice must prevail, as the State cannot claim a "vested right in injustice."

"The State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession... to grab the property of its own citizens."

Expiry Of The 1948 Act And Illegal Possession

The Court analyzed the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, noting it was a temporary statute that expired on March 31, 1997. Since no acquisition notice was published under Section 4(1a) of that Act during its lifetime, the requisition ended upon the Act’s expiry. Consequently, the State’s continued possession of the land after 1997 without initiating new proceedings was deemed "without any authority of law."

Non-Application of Service Jurisprudence to Property Rights

The Court distinguished cases cited by the State regarding service matters, noting that the principles of delay in service jurisprudence do not apply to land acquisition. In property cases, the deprivation of land without compensation is an act of expropriation that demands judicial intervention regardless of the time elapsed.

"The manner in which the petitioner has been deprived of his property without legal sanction shocks the conscience of this Court."

Mandatory Application Of The 2013 Act

Since the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been repealed and no notice was issued under the 1997 West Bengal Amendment (Section 9(3A)), the Court held that there is no longer any scope to complete the proceedings under the old laws. Following the ratio in State of West Bengal vs. Mahadeb Khan, the Court determined that the only available path is to initiate fresh acquisition under the 2013 Act.

"After 01.01.2014, notice under Section 9(3A) of the 1894 Act could not be issued... and the proceedings under the repealed Act could not continue except in cases falling under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act."

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent authorities to initiate acquisition proceedings for the petitioner's land under the 2013 Act. The bench ordered that the entire process, including the payment of fair compensation to the petitioner, must be completed within four months.

The judgment reinforces the principle that the State's power of eminent domain is strictly tethered to the obligation of paying fair compensation. By dismissing the plea of delay, the Calcutta High Court has ensured that constitutional protections under Article 300A remain substantive and that the State cannot profit from its own procedural negligence or long-term illegal occupation of private land.

Date of Decision: May 6, 2026