Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Belur Projects Llp & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 March, 2026
Author: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Bench: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
AD 16
S. Banerjee
AR (Ct.)
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
WPA 18872 of 2025
M/s. Belur Projects LLP & Ors.
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioners : Mr. Mainak Bose, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Reshmi Ghosh
Mr. Dipnarayan Mukherjee
Ms. Madhumanti Das
For the State-respondent : Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. AGP
Ms. Tuli Sinha
Heard on : 19.03.2026
Judgement on : 19.03.2026
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:
1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of several plots of land within
Mouza – Bali, JL No. 14 under Nischinda Police Station in the
district of Howrah measuring about 2.87 acres. The petitioners
state that the possession of the plots of land of the petitioners was
taken over by passing an order under Section 3(1) of the West
2
Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 on September
6, 1993. Petitioners allege that no further step for acquisition of the
plots of the petitioners was taken but the same has been utilised
for the purpose for which it was requisitioned.
2. Mr. Bose, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners
submits that no steps for acquisition of the property under the
provisions of the 1948 Act was taken. In the meantime, the life of
the 1948 Act stood expired and the respondent authorities did not
take any further step to acquire the said property by invoking the
provisions of Section 9(3A) and/or 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition
(West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997. Mr. Bose further submits
that in the meantime the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stood
repealed with coming into force of Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 with effect from January 1, 2014. Mr. Bose submits that
since no award was passed during the lifetime of the 1894 Act and
the property of the petitioners has been utilised by the respondent
authorities for a public purpose, the respondent authorities should
be directed to pay compensation to the petitioners in the manner
as provided under the 2013 Act.
3. In support of such contention Mr. Bose, learned Senior Advocate,
places reliance upon a judgment dated September 19, 2024 passed
3
by this Court in WPA 7380 of 2015 in the case of Jamaluddin
Momin -Vs.- State of West Bengal & Ors.
4. Mr. Mukherjee, learned AGP submits that in the meantime the
compensation amount has been calculated and the amount has
been received by the Collector and the amount of compensation
shall be paid to the petitioners within the time limit as may be
fixed by this Court.
5. Mr. Bose, learned Senior Advocate, submits that without declaring
any award, the compensation amount cannot be determined and
paid. He submits that the compensation amount has been
determined by taking the market value of the property as on the
date of taking over of possession, i.e., in the month of September,
1993, which is against the settled proposition of law.
6. The following facts are not in dispute:
7.465 acres of land was taken up for requisition under section 3(1)
of the LA Act-II of 1948, in Mouza – Bally, JL No. 14 in LA Case
NO. 23 (Act-II) of 1987-1988 which included 2.87 acres of land
which was owned by the then M/s. Tatanagar Foundry Ltd.
The said proceeding was initiated as per requisition of the Refugee
Relief and Rehabilitation Department, Government of West Bengal
for settlement of refugees in the colony named Netaji Nagar Colony.
4
Notice under Section 3(1) of Act-II of 1948 was issued on
September 6, 1993.
7. It is not in dispute that steps for acquisition of the land in question
were not taken by issuing a notice under Section 4(1a) of Act-II of
1948 during its lifetime. It is also not in dispute that no step was
taken for carrying on with the acquisition proceeding during the
lifetime of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by invoking the
provisions of Section 9(3A) or 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition (West
Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997.
8. It is evident from the stand of the respondent authorities that the
plots of land in question have been utilised without payment of
compensation to the landowners and the state is also not in a
position to return such lands to the landowners.
9. The question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioners
are entitled to compensation as per the 2013 Act.
10. A more or less identical issue fell for consideration before this
Court in the case of Jamaluddin Momin (supra). This Court after
noting the provisions of sub-Sections (3A) and (3B) of Section 9 of
the 1948 Act as well as the decision in the case of State of West
Bengal -Vs.- Sabita Mondal, reported at (2011) 3 CHN (Cal) 555
and the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of State
of West Bengal -Vs.- Ganesh Samanta, reported at (2014) 4 WBLR
(Cal) 996 held that as the State has utilised the land in question
5
and is not in a position to restore possession of the lands to the
petitioner/land owner and also that the proceeding under the 1948
Act stood lapsed, State-respondent should be directed to initiate a
proceeding for acquisition afresh in accordance with the 2013 Act
and to complete the same within a stipulated time.
11. In Jamaluddin Momon (supra) it was held thus:
“14. The 1948 Act was amended by the West Bengal
Land (Requisition and Acquisition) (Amendment) Act,
1994 which was published in the Calcutta Gazette on
31.03.1994. By virtue of the said Amendment Act,
Section 3 of the 1948 Act was omitted. Therefore, the
power of the State to requisition any land was taken
away by virtue of the Amendment Act, 1994 with effect
from 01.04.1994. The validity of the 1948 Act was also
extended till 31.03.1997 by virtue of the said
Amendment Act.
15. The 1894 Act was also amended by W.B. Act VII of
1997 in its application to the State of West Bengal. By
virtue of such amendment, sub-sections (3A) and (3B)
were incorporated after Section 9(3) of the 1894 Act.
16. Sub-sections (3A) and (3B) of Section 9 of the 1894
Act as incorporated by way of amendment is extracted
hereinafter.
“(3-A) The Collector shall also serve notice to the
same effect on all such persons known or
believed to be interested in any land, or to be
entitled to act for persons so interested, the
possession whereof has already been taken on
requisition under section 3 of the West Bengal
Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948
6(hereinafter referred to in this section as the said
Act), as re-enacted by the West Bengal Land
(Requisition and Acquisition) Re-enacting Act,
1977, and, in every such case, the provisions of
sub-section (1) of section 4, section 5, section 5-
A, section 6, section 7 and section 8 of this Act
shall be deemed to have been complied with:
Provided that the date of notice under this sub-
section shall be the date of reference for the
purpose of determining the value of such land
under this Act:
Provided further that when the Collector has
made an award under section 11 in respect of
any such land, such land shall, upon such
award, vest absolutely in the Government, free
from all encumbrances.
(3-B) The Collector shall also serve notice to the
same effect on all such persons known or
believed to be interested in any land, or to be
entitled to act for persons so interested, the
possession whereof has already been taken on
requisition under section 3 of the said Act, and
notice for acquisition of such land has also been
published under sub-section (1-a) of section 4 of
the said Act, and, in every such case, the
provisions of section 4, section 5, section 5-A,
section 6, section 7, section 8 and section 16 of
this Act shall be deemed to have been complied
with:
Provided that the date of publication of notice
under sub-section (1- a) of section 4 of the said
Act shall be the date of reference for the purpose
of determining the value of such land under this
Act:
Provided further that in every such case, the
Collector shall make an award under section 11
in respect of such land only for the purpose of
payment of due compensation to the persons
interested in such land has, upon the Collector
taking possession thereof, already vested
absolutely in the Government, free from all
encumbrances.”
7
17. Section 9(3B) comes into play where notice under
Section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act has been issued. Since
admittedly notice under Section 4(1a) has not been
issued in the case on hand, Section 9(3B) do not have
any manner of application.
18. Section 9(3A) states that in a case where possession
has already been taken on requisition under Section 3 of
the 1948 Act, the provisions of Sections 4(1), 5, 5A, 6, 7
and 8 of the 1894 Act shall be deemed to have been
complied with.
19. Proviso thereto states that the date of notice under
Section 9(3A) shall be the date of reference for the
purpose of determining the value of such land under the
1894 Act.
20. Second proviso states that when the Collector has
made an award under Section 11 in respect of any such
land, shall land, shall upon such award, vest absolutely
in the Government free from all encumbrances.
21. In the case on hand, possession of the land was
taken under Section 3 of the 1948 Act. Such possession
was taken on requisition. In the absence of any notice
being published under Section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act, the
question of vesting of the land as contemplated under
Section 4(2) of the said Act does not arise.
22. 1948 Act, however, stood expired due to efflux of time
after 31.03.1997. With the expiry of the 1948 Act, the
requisition also ended and the State was obliged to
8restore possession of such lands to the land owner/
petitioner. The W.B. Amendment Act, however, empowers
the State to continue with possession of such lands by
resorting to Section 9(3A) of the 1894 Act.
23. The effect of the Land Acquisition (West Bengal
Amendment) Act, 1997 fell for consideration in Sabitri
Devi vs. State of W.B. reported at (2002) 3 CHN 108
wherein it was held that revalidation has the effect of
reviving the requisition for acquisition. In paragraph 41
of the said report it has been held that –
“41. The revalidation has the effect of reviving the
requisition for acquisition. As such it is only on the
issue of notices under subsection (3A) or (3B) of
section 9 of 1894 Act, the revalidation takes, effect.
The requisition having ended on the effacement of
the statute the property is to be restored to the
owner. It could also be treated to have been ended
for acquisition where notices under section 4(1a) of
1948 Act stood lapsed before 31st March, 1997. By
reason of 1997 Amendment in West Bengal of 1894
Act a fiction is created. By reason of such fiction the
requisition would stand converted into acquisition
with the issue of notice under section 9(3A) of the
1894 Act, as amended in 1997 in West Bengal. As
soon section 9(3A) is resorted to, the possession, if
continued after requisition and not restored, shall
be deemed to be a possession revalidated under
the Land Acquisition Act which then would be a
possession for acquisition on the issue of the
notification/notice under section
9(3A)……………………………………”
24. In case the State resorts to Section 9(3A), the
possession of lands taken on requisition and not yet
restored to the land owners shall be deemed to be a
possession revalidated under the 1894 Act. Such
possession would then be a possession for acquisition
9
upon issuance of notice under Section 9(3A) of the 1894
Act.
25. It is evident from the Memo dated 10.08.2011 issued
by the Collector, Murshidabad to the Principal Secretary
to the Government of West Bengal, Land and Land
Reforms Department which has been annexed to the
affidavit-in-opposition of the State that notice under
Section 9(3A) has not been served to the concerned
parties as the fund was not available. The affidavit was
affirmed sometimes in the month of September, 2022.
26. Section 9(3A) of the 1894 Act casts an obligation
upon the State to serve notice on all such persons known
or believed to be interested in any land or to be entitled to
act for the persons so interested in a case where
possession of the land was taken under Section 3 of the
1948 Act to revive the requisition for acquisition.
27. In view of the admitted fact that notice under Section
9(3A) has not been served upon the concerned person,
this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings
initiated under 1948 Act stood lapsed with the effacement
of the said statute. This Court accordingly holds that the
authorities of the State are possessing the lands in
question illegally and forcibly without any authority of
law.
28. In the case on hand, possession of the land was
taken over in exercise of the power of requisition under a
temporary statute. Such statute was valid till 31.3.1997.
Such land has been utilised for a permanent purpose
10
without taking any steps to acquire the same. The power
to acquire lands falls within the purview of eminent
domain of the State. Article 300A of the Constitution of
India states that no person can be deprived of his
property save by authority of law. The land acquisition
laws provide a complete mechanism for deprivation of
property of a person in accordance with law. Such laws
provide for payment of fair compensation to the land
losers. Alleged payment of 80% of the estimated land
value, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed to
be a fair compensation in accordance with the relevant
statute that provides for acquisition of land. Therefore,
utilisation of property without payment of fair
compensation to the land owner(s) is in violation of
Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Such act
amounts to colourable exercise of power by the State and
the State is duty bound to pay compensation in
accordance with law. Since the land owner is deprived of
his property, State is obliged to pay fair compensation to
such land owner in accordance with law.
29. It is not in dispute that the property in question has
been utilised for the purpose of construction of road.
State is also not in a position to restore the land to the
land owners. The proceedings under the 1948 Act has
already been held to have lapsed. The 1894 Act has since
been replaced and the 2013 Act has come into force with
effect from 01.01.2014.
30. In Aziman Bibi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
after noting that the land owned by the writ petitioners
has been utilised pursuant to the initial declaration and
11
also noticing that the acquisition proceeding stood
lapsed, directed the State to take steps for notifying the
acquisition once again and determine compensation in
accordance with law.
31. In Ganesh Samanta (supra), the notice under Section
4(1a) stood lapsed. The Hon’ble Division Bench after
noticing the Special Bench decision of this Court in State
of West Bengal vs. Sabita Mondal reported at (2011) 3
CHN (Cal) 555 held that the State Government could have
completed the acquisition proceeding by applying the
provision of Section 9(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
However, in view of the subsequent development in Land
Acquisition laws with the enactment of the 2013 Act, and
particularly in view of Section 24(1)(a) of the said Act, the
Hon’ble Division Bench directed the State to complete the
acquisition proceeding by following the relevant
provisions of the 2013 Act.
32. As the State has utilised the lands in question and is
not in a position to restore possession of the lands to the
petitioner/ land owner and also that the proceeding
under the 1948 Act stood lapsed, the proposition laid
down in Aziman Bibi (supra), and Ganesh Samanta
(supra) shall squarely apply to the case on hand. This
Court, therefore, holds that the State respondents should
be directed to initiate a proceeding for acquisition afresh
in accordance with the 2013 Act and to complete the
same within a stipulated time.”
12. The decision in the case of Jamaluddin Momin (supra) shall
squarely apply to the case on hand.
12
13. In the case on hand, the requisition ended due to the expiry of
the 1948 Act upon efflux of time. Since no proceeding for
acquisition has been initiated, the property did not vest upon the
State and the continuation of possession by the State is illegal and
unlawful. Since the State is not in a position to restore possession
of the property to the landowners, the State should be directed to
initiate a fresh acquisition proceeding and pay compensation which
shall be determined under the 2013 Act.
14. In view thereof, the writ petition stands allowed.
15. The respondents, including the Collector, Howrah, being the 3rd
respondent, are directed to take steps for initiating a proceeding for
acquisition afresh in terms of the provisions of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to complete the
same including payment of compensation as expeditiously as
possible but positively within a period of four months from the
receipt of a server copy of this order.
16. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
17. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)