Supreme Court notice in challenge to 65-year-old Land Acquisition proceedings [Read Petition]

What is the scope of judicial interference when land acquisition proceedings initiated decades earlier, under now-repealed laws, are challenged? The Supreme Court may render a finding on this question, now that it has issued notice in a challenge to land acquisition proceedings initiated over 65 years ago under the erstwhile West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948..A Bench of AM Sapre and Indu Malhotra has issued notice in a Special Leave Petition brought by 27 villagers based in Medinipur, West Bengal, following a 2015 eviction notice served with respect to lands they reside in. The eviction was ordered on the ground that the lands in question had been acquired from the then landowners of the property between 1949 and 1951 for the purpose of developing a brick field..However, the petitioners contend that the process of land acquisition was never completed, and has since then lapsed, particularly in view of the prevailing 2013 Land Acquisition Act..Whereas a notification was issued, and the same was published in the Calcutta Gazette, the State did not take any further steps to complete the acquisition of the land. Neither was possession taken over nor was any award passed or compensation paid for the land acquisition. The petition states,.“It is fact that possession was not taken over at the relevant point of time of acquisition and award was not made and no compensation was paid, hence the purported acquisition proceeding initiated under Act II of 1948 be treated to the lapsed in view of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.“.The petitioners go on to contend that they were never informed of the land having been vested with the State. In fact, the petitioners point out, they have been enjoying uninterrupted possession of the said land until the eviction was ordered by the State as late as 2015. While some of the petitioners have inherited the land from their forefathers, others claim to have purchased the same from the owners..To buttress their claim over the land, reference is made to Section 61 of the former Land Acquisition Act of 1894. This provision lays down that the State can take possession of acquired land, upon which the land would stand vested with the State free from all encumbrances. In this case, however, no possession was taken. Without there being possession of the land, the State cannot claim that the land stands acquired by them, contend the petitioners..Further, the West Bengal Land Act of 1948 also calls on the State to make an award for the acquired land within three years of notifying the acquisition, failing which the land acquisition proceedings would stand lapsed..It is the petitioners’ case that there is no proof on record of such award or compensation having been paid, even if the land acquisition was notified in the Calcutta Gazette. Right to Information queries made in this regard only lead to the authorities informing that the records could not be traced since the case was an old one..Even after the petitioners challenged the State’s forced eviction in the Calcutta High Court, the State authorities were unable to furnish any proof of possession, award or compensation having been made..However, since the State was able to show that the acquisition had been officially notified in the Gazette, and given that the case was an old one, the High Court took the presumptive view that the land acquisition proceedings had culminated in the passage of an award..The High Court opined that, in view of the same having been notified officially, it could not be that the petitioners’ predecessors-in-interest were unaware of the acquisition. Therefore, both the Single and Division Benches of the High Court dismissed the petitions, finding that the petitioners could not challenge the land acquisition at such a delayed stage..Challenging the High Court verdicts, the petitioners have now approached the Supreme Court. The Court, in turn, has issued notice returnable in four weeks..Advocates Rohan D Bhowmick and Uday Gupta are representing the petitioners..Read the petition:.Read the order: