KISHAN LAL CHANDAK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a declaration that LA Case No. 23/04-05 and all proceedings notifications, declarations, awards, etc are null and void. Directions upon the respondent to withdraw and cancel the notification being Jalpaiguri No. 752(2) L.A./309-R/SJDA-23/04-05 dtd. 1/12/2006 issued under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and the notification no. 2486/L.A./11/14/2008 LAP No. 23/2004-05 dtd. 16/6/2008 under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as follows. Between the years August 2007 and October 2008, the petitioners purchased some land measuring 3.27 acres comprising several plots at Mouza Debgram, District Jalpaiguri, fully described in paragraph 2, at page 6 of the writ petition, hereinafter referred to as the 'said plots of land'. The petitioners were in actual physical possession of the said plots of land since the date of purchase. Prior to purchase, in the year 2006, there was some disputes with regard to the boundary of the said plots of land between the vendors of the petitioners and the authorities of the Mahananda Barrage. Pursuant to a direction of the Learned Executive Magistrate, in a proceeding under Sec. 144 of CrPC, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Rajganj, demarcated the said plots of land and filed two reports along with site map, before the said Learned Executive Magistrate on 14/2/2007 and on 2/4/2007. From the said report it revealed that the erstwhile owners of the said plots of land were in actual physical possession of the said land. After the said demarcation of the said plots of land, the erstwhile owners transferred the subject land in favour of the petitioners by executing several deeds of conveyance and delivered possession of the said plots of land to the petitioners. The petitioners butted and bounded the said plots of land by erecting walls. The petitioners thereafter got their names mutated in the records. All of a sudden by a notice dtd. 23/10/2007, the Sub-Divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer, Sadar, Jalpaiguri, directed the petitioners to remove the boundary walls from the said plots of land within seven days. Challenging the said notice dtd. 23/10/2007, the petitioners moved a writ petition, being W.P. No. 24480 (W) of 2007, before this Court. On 1/11/2007, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct the respondents not to give any effect to the said impugned notice dtd. 23/10/2007. The said interim order was extended from time to time. The said writ petition was still pending before this Court. While the petitioners had been possessing the said plots of land, all of a sudden on 25/3/2010, the Collector Jalpaiguri took possession of the said plots of land from the petitioners, on the plea that the subject land was acquired in a proceeding under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners were completely taken aback. Thereafter the petitioners sought information from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector, Jalpaiguri. In reply to the said queries the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalpaiguri, by his letter dtd. 20/7/2010, informed the petitioners about the acquisition proceeding pertaining to the subject land but without any copy of notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act. After several RTI applications were made by the petitioners to the authorities concerned, ultimately by a reply dtd. 30/9/2013, the petitioners were informed that the award amount was deposited with the Ld. Government Pleader, Jalpaiguri. By another reply under the RTI Act, dtd. 4/7/2014, the petitioners were supplied with the copies of the notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and a copy of the award. It revealed from the said notifications that preliminary notifications under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the said plots of land, was published in the Kolkata Gazette on 1/12/2006.

(3.) Learned senior counsel representing the State submitted as follows. According to the writ petition, Santa Chandak purchased some lands in 2008. Kishan Lal Chandak purchased land by different deeds between 2007 and 2008. It was the admitted position that the writ petitioners purchased all the lands on and from the year 2007 to 2008. The notification under Sec. 4 of the Act 1894 was published on 1/12/2006. The acquisition proceeding was completed after complying all the procedure including declaring award in the name of the awardees and that was very clear from the writ petition itself. Admitted position was that the writ petitioners filed another writ petition W.P. No. 24480 (W) of 2007. From the above it was very clear that the writ petitioners were subsequent purchasers after notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 published on 1/12/2006 and the petitioners had no right, title and/or jurisdiction to challenge the notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and/or the proceeding under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The writ petitioners admitted that the writ petitioners were the subsequent purchase i.e. after the date of notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published. Reliance was placed on (2012) 12 SCC 133 (V. Chandrasekharan and another versus Administrative Officer and Others). The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that a person who purchased land subsequent to the issuance of Sec. 4 notification with respect to it, was not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever for the reason that the sale deed executed in his favour did not confer upon him, any title and at the most he could claim compensation on the basis of his vendor's title. In AIR 1975 SC 2112 (In Lila Ram Versus Union of India), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that anyone who dealt with the land subsequent to a Sec. 4 notification being issued, did so, at his peril. In (1996) 7 SCC 426, AIR 1996 SC 540 (Sneha Prabhu versus State of U.P.), it was held that a Sec. 4 notification gave notice to the public at large that the land in respect of which it had been issued, was needed for public purpose and it further pointed out that there would be an impediment to anyone to encumber the land acquired thereunder.' The alienation thereafter did not bind the State as the beneficiary under the acquisition. The purchaser was entitled to receive the compensation. While deciding the said case, reliance was placed on an earlier judgment of this Court in Union of India versus Shiva Kumar Bhargava (1995) 2 SCC 427. Similar view was taken in (1996) 3 SCC 124 AIR 1996 SC 1170 (U.P. Jalnigam versus Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd.) and (1996) 11 SCC 698 (Star Wire (India) Ltd. versus State of Haryana). In view of these, the sale of land after issuance of Sec. 4 notification was void and the purchaser could not challenge the acquisition proceeding. Reliance was placed on (2009) 10 SCC 689 (Tika Ram versus State of U.P). In (2020) 8 SCC 129 (Indore Development Authority versus Monoharlal and Other), (1996) 1 SCC 311 Market Committee versus Krishan Murari and (1996) 3 SCC 99 (Putta Lal versus State of U.P.), the concept of vesting was considered. Reliance was placed on AIR 1957 SC 344 (Fruit and Vegetable Merchants Union versus Delhi Improvement Trust). Once vesting took place, a person who remained in possession was only a trespasser, not in rightful possession and vesting contemplated absolute title, possession in the State.