### Non-Payment of Compensation Following Expiry of Requisition under 1948 Act Mandates Fresh Acquisition under 2013 Act Summary of the Judgment: The High Court at Calcutta addressed a dispute where the State of West Bengal had requisitioned the petitioner’s land in 1978 under the *West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948*, but failed to finalize the acquisition or pay compensation before the Act expired in 1997. The State also failed to issue a notice under Section 9(3A) of the *Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997*, to revive the proceedings under the 1894 Act. The Court rejected the State's plea of "delay and laches," invoking Supreme Court precedents like *Vidya Devi* and *Sukh Dutt Ratra*. It held that the deprivation of property without legal sanction constitutes a "continuing cause of action" and shocks the judicial conscience, precluding the State from using delay as a shield against the constitutional mandate of Article 300A. Crucially, the Court ruled that since no valid acquisition proceedings were pending under the 1894 Act at the time of its repeal, the State cannot now utilize the 1894 Act. Consequently, the State was directed to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings specifically under the *Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013*, to determine and pay fair compensation to the petitioner.

The petitioner is the recorded owner of several plots in Mouza Bural, Paschim Medinipur.

These plots were requisitioned by the State in 1975-76 under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (the "1948 Act") for road construction.

Possession was taken in 1978, but the State failed to publish an acquisition notice under Section 4(1a) or pay compensation.

After a prior court direction, the Land Acquisition Officer admitted the requisition in 2018 but claimed inability to pay compensation as both the 1948 and 1894 Acts were repealed.

The State contested the writ petition primarily on the ground of a 40-year delay and argued that the 2013 Act does not apply to 1948 Act proceedings.

Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person be deprived of property save by authority of law.

Tukaram Kana Joshi v. M.I.D.C. and Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh establish that the plea of delay cannot negate a claim for compensation in cases of continuous cause of action or where judicial conscience is shocked.

The Full Bench decision in State of West Bengal v. Sabita Mondal, clarifying that requisition under the 1948 Act lapses if not converted to acquisition.

State of West Bengal v. Mahadev Khan, which held that if 1894 Act revival steps (Section 9(3A)) were not taken before its repeal, the 2013 Act must govern new proceedings.

Since no notice under Section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act was issued, the land never vested in the State; once the temporary 1948 Act expired in 1997, the requisition ended and the State's continued possession became unauthorized.

The State failed to "regularize" the possession by issuing notices under Section 9(3A) of the 1894 Act (as amended in 1997) before that Act was repealed on 01.01.2014; consequently, there is no "pending" proceeding under the old laws to save.

The deprivation of property without compensation is a "continuing cause of action" and an "executive fiat" that shocks the judicial conscience, precluding the State from using laches as a shield for lawlessness.

Since the land is already utilized for a road and cannot be returned, a fresh acquisition process is the only legal remedy.

The court held that compensation must be determined under the 2013 Act.

The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent authorities to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and complete the payment of compensation within four months.