Court’s Decision
The Calcutta High Court directed the competent State Authority to disburse an amount of ₹6,53,715 along with interest at 8% per annum from 7 January 2014 until the date of payment, in favour of the petitioners (subsequent purchasers of the land). The compensation is to be paid to the extent of their share, subject to scrutiny and verification, within two months from the date of communication of the order. The Court held that since the land acquisition was carried out under the West Bengal Act-II of 1948 and not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 24 of the 2013 Act had no application.
Facts
The petitioners, who were subsequent purchasers of 5.03 acres of land initially acquired for the SPUR 4 construction project in Malda district, sought disbursement of statutory compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Though an award had been passed under the earlier Act, 1894, no compensation was paid either to the original landowners or the petitioners. Despite repeated representations, the compensation amount remained unpaid. The petitioners invoked Section 24 of the 2013 Act and cited violation of the Doctrine of Eminent Domain.
Issues
- Whether the land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24 of the 2013 Act.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act or only to the extent of the award granted to their vendors under the previous acquisition law.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners argued that:
- They are bona fide purchasers who acquired the land post-award but before disbursal of compensation.
- Since no compensation was paid and more than five years had lapsed, Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act would apply, deeming the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed.
- They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (1996) to contend that subsequent purchasers are entitled to compensation under the law.
- They contended that even if the initial acquisition was under the 1948 Act, it had effectively merged into the 1894 Act and should therefore attract the provisions of the 2013 Act.
Respondents’ Arguments
The State argued that:
- The acquisition was under West Bengal Act-II of 1948, not under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, and hence Section 24 of the 2013 Act had no application.
- Possession of the land was already taken and the award passed; the acquisition proceedings had thus concluded long before 2013.
- There was a delay of 29 years in approaching the Court since the award was passed in 1990.
- The petitioners, as subsequent purchasers, can only claim compensation equivalent to what the original owners were entitled to and cannot claim under the 2013 Act.
- They relied on V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer (2012) and Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) to assert that Section 24(2) only applies where both possession has not been taken and compensation not paid—here, possession was taken.
Analysis of the Law
Section 24 of the 2013 Act explicitly applies only to acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The Court found that the present acquisition was initiated under West Bengal Act-II of 1948 and not under the 1894 Act. As such, Section 24 was not applicable. Further, per Indore Development Authority (2020), the twin conditions for lapse under Section 24(2)—non-payment of compensation and non-possession—must both be satisfied. Since possession had already been taken, the condition for lapse was not met.
Precedent Analysis
- Niladri Chatterjee Case (Calcutta High Court): Held that proceedings under the 1948 Act cannot be treated as under the 1894 Act for applying Section 24 of the 2013 Act.
- Sri Saktipada Saha Chowdhury Case (Calcutta High Court): Reaffirmed that Section 24 and 26 of the 2013 Act are inapplicable to acquisitions under the 1948 Act.
- V. Chandrasekaran Case (Supreme Court): Clarified that purchasers after Section 4 notification under the acquisition law are not entitled to challenge acquisition and can only claim compensation to the extent their vendor was entitled.
- Indore Development Authority Case (Supreme Court): Interpreted Section 24(2) as requiring both non-possession and non-payment for lapse to occur; possession alone suffices to preclude lapse.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that:
- Since the acquisition was under the 1948 Act, the proceedings do not fall within the ambit of Section 24 of the 2013 Act.
- Possession of land had already been taken in 1990, thus precluding any claim of lapse.
- The petitioners, as subsequent purchasers, stepped into the shoes of their vendors and could claim compensation only to the extent awarded earlier.
- Section 9(3B) of the 1997 Amendment to the 1894 Act deems compliance with all acquisition procedures when possession was already taken and notice under Section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act was published.
Conclusion
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to disburse ₹6,53,715 along with 8% interest per annum from 07.01.2014 until the date of payment. The Court clarified that compensation must be paid to the petitioners to the extent of their share, based on vendor entitlement, and within two months.
Implications
- This decision reinforces that subsequent purchasers cannot claim compensation under the 2013 Act when acquisition was under a repealed state-specific statute.
- It clarifies that Section 24 of the 2013 Act is not a remedy where acquisition is completed under laws other than the 1894 Act.
- Purchasers of land post-acquisition notification must be cautious and aware that their rights are limited to those of their vendors.
Cases Referred and Their Relevance
- U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (1996) – Held that subsequent purchasers are entitled to compensation.
- V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer (2012) – Held that purchasers post-notification are not entitled to challenge acquisition and can only claim vendor’s compensation.
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) – Clarified twin conditions for lapse under Section 24(2); “or” must be read as “nor”.
- State of West Bengal v. Niladri Chatterjee – Acquisition under 1948 Act not eligible for Section 24 benefits.
- State of West Bengal v. Sri Saktipada Saha Chowdhury – Confirmed inapplicability of 2013 Act provisions to 1948 Act acquisitions.
FAQs
Q1. Can subsequent purchasers claim compensation under the 2013 Act?
Only if the acquisition was under the 1894 Act and if Section 24(2) conditions are satisfied. In this case, since the land was acquired under the 1948 Act, they can only claim what their vendors were entitled to.
Q2. What happens if compensation has not been paid for more than 5 years?
Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, deemed lapse applies only if both possession has not been taken and compensation not paid. If possession is already taken, the lapse does not apply.
Q3. Does Section 24 of the 2013 Act apply to acquisition under the West Bengal Act-II of 1948?
No, the Calcutta High Court has held that Section 24 applies only to proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.
