LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Non-service of a requisition order under Section 3(2) of the 1948 Act does not vitiate subsequent acquisition proceedings.

The petitioners claimed ownership of a plot (RS Plot No. 2454/2759) in Mouza Kasba through a 1968 deed of conveyance

The State acquired the land in two phases: 0.82 acres in 1976-77 and 0.06 acres in 1993-94 for the East Calcutta Area Development Project

The petitioners alleged that the mandatory requisition order under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 ("1948 Act") was never served upon their predecessor-in-interest, rendering the entire acquisition non-est

The State’s status report indicated that possession was taken in 1978 and 1994, awards were declared, and amounts were deposited in court

The petitioners approached the Court in 2022/2025, several decades after the acquisition was finalized

1. Whether the service of the requisition order under Section 3(2) of the 1948 Act is a mandatory requirement, the non-compliance of which vitiates subsequent acquisition proceedings.

2. Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of inordinate delay and laches.

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the release of the property or any further relief.

Interpretation of Section 3 (Power to requisition) and Section 4 (Acquisition of land) of the 1948 Act, along with Rule 3 of the 1948 Rules

S.M. Nandy v. State of West Bengal regarding the right to representation after service of order.

Doctrine of per incuriam as applied to Sailendra Nath Pal v. State of West Bengal and the binding precedent of Madhurina Mitra v. State of West Bengal, which held that non-service of notice under Section 3(2) does not vitiate the acquisition.

Doctrine of Laches as established in Sawaran Lata v. State of Haryana and Leelawanti v. State of Haryana, alongside the principle of "Vesting" from Indore Development Authority v. Sailendra.

The court initially explored whether "shall" in Section 3(2) is mandatory, noting that while private rights usually demand strict compliance, the binding precedent in Madhurina Mitra clarified that the 1948 Act provides no sanction for non-observance of service and that notice's purpose is merely informatory. Consequently, the court found the requisition and acquisition valid despite alleged non-service.

Factually, the court observed that the petitioners' predecessor was listed as an awardee in the 1983 Gazette notification, implying knowledge of the proceedings.

The court rejected the petitioners' claim that the land was "covered by structure" (and thus exempt) because the 1968 deed described the land as "paddy land" and no evidence of later construction was provided.

The court reasoned that the delay of over 26 years in challenging the 1993 acquisition was fatal, as the land had already "vested absolutely" in the State free from all encumbrances.

The court further held that the petition was hopelessly barred by laches due to an unexplained delay of nearly three decades. As the property had vested in the State, the petitioners' title was extinguished, and they remained mere trespassers if in possession.

The court dismissed the writ petition. No relief for release of the property was granted.