Right to property| Calcutta High Court directs payment of compensation under Article 300A despite substantial delay

Calcutta High Court held that the Municipality’s possession without proper acquisition procedures is deemed illegal, and the State is directed to initiate proceedings and pay compensation.

calcutta high court

Calcutta High Court: In an appeal against the order directing the initiation of land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and payment of compensation, a division bench comprising of Arijit Banerjee, and Kausik Chanda,* JJ., held that right to property justifies compensation despite delay and directed the State to initiate proceeding under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and pay compensation within a reasonable time.

Factual Matrix

In the instant matter, an appeal was filed by appellant-Sainthia Municipality against a judgment and order dated 17-07-2017, issued by a Single Judge directing the State to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, and compensate the respondent-petitioner within six months.

The writ petitioners claimed that 20 decimals of land, part of Plot No.5062, J.L. No.95 of Mouza-Sainthia, were requisitioned by the State under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (the Act, 1948). The possession was transferred to Sainthia Municipality without converting the proceeding under the Act, 1948 into a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Parties’ Contentions

The appellant contended that the Municipality requisitioned the land in 1989, deposited compensation, and took possession of a children’s park. It was contended that the writ petition, filed after a 20-year delay, is not maintainable, and Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 doesn’t apply to concluded proceedings under the Act, 1948.

The appellant contended that the Municipality constructed a community hall on the land in 2002 and is still in possession. It was contended that the writ petitioners’ earlier petition seeking the Municipality to vacate the land was dismissed for default, invoking constructive res judicata.

The respondent contended that the requisition under the Act, 1948 was not converted to a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It was contended that Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 doesn’t apply, but the Municipality is in illegal possession, and compensation is owed as per Land Acquisition Act, 2013. It was contended that despite the delay, the right to property is a valuable constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The Court observed that the requisition order under the Act, 1948 was not converted to a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court stated that Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 does not apply, but the Municipality’s possession without compensation violates the right to property. Therefore, the Municipality is in illegal possession, and compensation is owed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

While citing Vidya Devi v. State of H.P., (2020) 2 SCC 569 and Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of H.P., (2022) 7 SCC 508, the Court stated that delay and laches cannot bar justice when the State unlawfully expropriates property. The Court held that despite the substantial delay, the right to property is a valuable constitutional right, and compensation cannot be denied solely based on delay.

The Court directed the State to initiate proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and compensate the petitioners within a reasonable time. The appeal is dismissed, and the Municipality’s plea for a stay is rejected.

[Board of Councilor Sainthia Municipality v. Sundar Devi Anchalia, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 5058, order dated 15-12-2023]

*Judgment by Justice Kausik Chanda


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ashis Kumar Chowdhury, Mr. Avijit Kar, Counsel for the Appellants

Mr. Atish Ghosh, Ms. Antara Dey, Counsel for the writ petitioners/Respondent 1 & 3

Mr. Md. T.M. Siddiqui, Counsel for the State

Mr. Arif Ali, Mr. Md. Faizan Yakub, Counsel for the Applicant (I.A. No. C.A.N.3 of 2022)

Buy Constitution of India  HERE

Constitution of India

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *