{"id":302814,"date":"2023-10-03T10:00:04","date_gmt":"2023-10-03T04:30:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=302814"},"modified":"2023-10-09T13:27:50","modified_gmt":"2023-10-09T07:57:50","slug":"irrevocable-vesting-of-land-in-state-regardless-of-non-utilization-for-intended-purpose-calcutta-hc-scc-blog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/03\/irrevocable-vesting-of-land-in-state-regardless-of-non-utilization-for-intended-purpose-calcutta-hc-scc-blog\/","title":{"rendered":"Subsequent purchase of land acquired by State does not give purchaser right to challenge acquisition: Calcutta High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Calcutta High Court:<\/span> In an appeal challenging an order denying the appellant’s claim for compensation related to scheduled lands sought to be acquired by the National Highway Authorities, a division bench comprising of Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi,*<\/span> JJ., affirmed the impugned order denying the appellant’s claim for compensation. The Court held that the acquisition of the lands had been valid, and the subsequent purchase did not grant the appellant the authority to challenge the acquisition. The Court further held that subsequent notifications had no impact on the earlier acquisition.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/p>\n

In the instant matter, the scheduled lands in question were previously acquired by the State in a proceeding concluded in 1965. These lands remained in possession of the predecessors of the appellant even after the 1965 acquisition.<\/p>\n

The appellant subsequently purchased the lands from the previous owners through registered deeds of conveyance. His name was duly recorded in revenue records, supported by a certificate of mutation. However, there was a dispute regarding the recording of the appellant’s name in the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal records, which was still pending.<\/p>\n

In 2012, the National Highway Authority (‘respondent’) initiated a fresh acquisition proceeding for the same lands. The respondent offered compensation for the structures on the lands but not for the lands, leading the appellant to file a petition. The trial court dismissed the petition, rejecting the contentions that no compensation was paid to the landowners and that the State had not lawfully taken possession of the acquired lands.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16-01-2020, which denied the appellant’s claim for compensation, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the High Court challenging the same.<\/p>\n

Moot Point<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Whether the lands in question were validly acquired by the State in the 1965 proceeding, and if so, whether the subsequent purchase by the appellant conferred any right to challenge the acquisition?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Whether the National Highway Authority’s notice operated as a cancellation of the earlier acquisition?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Arguments:<\/p>\n

    The appellant contended that the State had never acquired possession of the lands and that subsequent notifications indicated a change in the requirement for the acquired lands.<\/p>\n

    The State contended that the lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894<\/a>, and compensation was duly paid to the previous owner in 1976. It was contended that the acquisition had attained finality and the appellant, as a subsequent purchaser, had no authority to challenge it.<\/p>\n

    Legal Principles:<\/p>\n