Land acquired for immigrants stays with state after possession: Cal HC

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has held that land acquired by the state in the early 1950s for the settlement of immigrants cannot be treated as lapsed merely because compensation was not formally fixed for decades, once possession has been taken and the land has vested in the State.

A division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya was hearing an appeal filed by the state against a single-judge order that directed fresh acquisition of the land.

The case concerns about 12.40 acres of land at Mouza Beleghata, under Baranagar police station in North 24-Parganas, which was taken over in 1950 under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act for settlement of immigrants. Records show that notifications and declarations were issued in May 1950 invoking urgency provisions, and possession was taken in November that year.

Possession certificates were issued to the original owner, and the land was later utilised for the public purpose for which it was acquired.

While 80 per cent of the estimated compensation was paid to the original owner in 1956, no final award determining compensation was ever declared. Repeated representations were made over the years seeking payment of the balance amount.

The heirs of the original owner later approached the High Court, contending that the acquisition had lapsed due to the prolonged delay and sought either completion of the acquisition process or fresh acquisition under the present land acquisition law.

A single judge had accepted the plea that the acquisition had lapsed and directed the state to initiate fresh proceedings. Challenging that order, the state argued that once possession was taken under the state law, the land vested absolutely in the state and could not be divested.

Allowing the appeal, the division bench ruled that subsequent notifications or delayed payment of compensation could not undo a vesting that had already taken place. It also noted that the landowners and their predecessor had consistently sought compensation, indicating acceptance of the acquisition. The High Court clarified that the landowners’ heirs are entitled to receive the balance compensation. The authorities have been directed to determine compensation in accordance with the applicable provisions of the state law and pay the remaining amount after adjusting what has already been paid. The court directed that the entire exercise be completed preferably by April 30, 2026.