Calcutta High Court: A single-judge bench comprising of Bibek Chaudhuri, J., held that the acquisition notice had lapsed due to non-payment of compensation within the stipulated period and that the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act, 2013).
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the deceased, petitioner’s mother, owned certain plots of land in Mouza Kasba, under Haltu Union Board, District South 24 Parganas, West Bengal. Upon her death, her husband and three children became co-shares of the property. The government requisitioned the property in late 1970 under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act 2 of 1948) for the construction of Rash Behari Connector. Compensation notices were issued in 1987, and the compensation amount was divided among legal heirs, but one of the sons was untraceable during the acquisition proceedings.
In 1994, it was officially recorded that one of the sons was missing and a missing diary was lodged with the police. The compensation was distributed among the claimants as legal heirs of the deceased and the compensation of the missing son was not paid due to his missing status.
In 2000, discussions were initiated regarding compensation for the petitioner and her siblings. The petitioners requested the authorities for alternative accommodation in exchange for the acquired property, and their plea was under consideration. The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs, including the release of withheld compensation, provision of alternative accommodation, and restoration of unused land.
Moot Point
-
Whether the acquisition notice had lapsed due to non-payment of compensation within the stipulated period?
-
Whether the petitioners are entitled to withheld compensation and alternative accommodation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?
Court’s Verdict
The Court held that since the compensation for the land was not paid within three years of the publication of the acquisition notice under Section 4(1a) of the Act 2 of 1948, the notice had lapsed.
“…the acquisition notice under Section 4(1a) is treated to be lapsed for nonpayment of compensation in respect of the land owned by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. As the land was acquired for construction of Rash Behari Connector and the structure constructed by the predecessor in-interest of the petitioners were completely demolished and the land has been used for public purpose, the petitioners at present are entitled to get compensation under the provision of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.”
The Court observed that since the land was acquired for public purposes and the structures were demolished, the petitioners were entitled to compensation under the Act, 2013. However, the Court refrained from making a decision on rehabilitation, as the Act, 2013 provided specific provisions for this.
[Banani Mistri v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2344, order dated 14-08-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Amit Kumar Pan, Mr. Ram Chandra Guchhait, Counsel for the Appellant;
Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, AGP., Ms. Piu Karmakar, Counsel for the State;
Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, AGP., Mr. Ziaul Haque, Counsel for the Respondent.
