State Must Prove Land Acquisition, Citizen Cannot Be Forced To Prove A Negative Fact: Calcutta High Court

"It was the burden and initial onus of the Railway Authorities, who asserted that the subject-plot was acquired for them, to show that the subject-plot was ever acquired for their purpose." Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling dated April 7, 2026, held that the burden of proving the acquisition of land lies entirely on the State authorities asserting such a claim, and a citizen cannot be asked to prove the "negative fact" of non-acquisition.

A division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya observed that the Railway Authorities had wrongly shifted the initial onus onto the landowner while trying to claim title over a disputed plot.

The appellant claimed ownership over a plot of land in Howrah through inheritance and registered sale deeds, upon which a multi-storied building had been constructed. Trouble arose when the Railway Authorities issued a stop-work notice, claiming the land had been acquired decades ago under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Defence of India Rules, 1962. A single judge of the High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition and directed the removal of encroachments, prompting the present appeal.

The primary question before the court was whether the disputed plot was ever legally acquired by the Railway Authorities under the Land Acquisition Act or the Defence of India Rules. The court was also called upon to determine whether the burden of proving non-acquisition could be placed upon the citizen asserting private title.

Omission In Section 6 Declaration Nullifies Acquisition

The court examined the records and noted that while the subject plot was mentioned in the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in August 1961, it was conspicuously omitted from the subsequent declaration under Section 6. The bench observed that the land also did not find any mention in the final awards passed under Section 11 of the Act. Consequently, the court concluded that the property was never acquired under the land acquisition statute.

No Nexus Between Defence Requisition And Railways

Addressing the State's alternative argument regarding the Defence of India Rules, the court found that while the land was requisitioned under Rule 75-A(1), only two decimals out of the eleven-decimal plot were actually acquired under Rule 75-A(2). The bench noted that this fractional acquisition in 1943 was strictly for military road development and strengthening the Howrah-Mourigram Road.

The court highlighted that this specific defence acquisition had absolutely no connection to the Railways. The bench ruled that military projects cannot automatically be conflated with railway projects unless specifically stated, thereby dismantling the Railway Authorities' claim over the entire plot.

State Cannot Ask Citizen To Prove A Negative

Criticising the order passed by the Divisional Engineer of the South Eastern Railway, the bench noted that it suffered from glaring errors by relying entirely on internal statements of railway officials without citing any gazette notification. The court held that the authorities had unlawfully reversed the burden of proof by demanding the appellant to produce documents proving that the land was not acquired.

"However, such negative fact could not be proved. Rather, it was the burden and initial onus of the Railway Authorities... to show that the subject-plot was ever acquired."

Single Judge Went Beyond Scope Of Writ Petition

The division bench found the single judge's ruling to be perverse and based on cryptic reasoning for failing to scrutinise the crucial omissions in the Section 6 declaration. Furthermore, the court held that the single judge exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering the eviction of the appellant and the removal of encroachments. The bench noted that such a direction was legally unsustainable, especially when neither the petitioner nor the respondents had made any such prayer before the writ court.

Allowing the appeal, the division bench set aside the single judge's judgment and quashed the eviction order passed by the Railway Authorities. The court declared that the Railways possess no right, title, or interest over the disputed property and directed the state authorities to rectify the revenue records in favour of the appellant.

Date of Decision: 07 April 2026