State cannot invoke delay to deny compensation for land utilized without following statutory acquisition procedures.

The petitioners are recorded owners of Plot No. 558 in Mouza Bural, Paschim Medinipur

In 1975-76, the land was requisitioned under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 ("1948 Act") for road construction, and possession was taken in 1978

However, the State never published a formal acquisition notice under Section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act, nor was an award passed or compensation paid

The 1948 Act expired on March 31, 1997

Despite a 2018 order by the Special Land Acquisition Officer admitting the petitioners' entitlement to compensation and a 2020 Memo suggesting a direct purchase policy, no compensation was disbursed

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a direction to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite a delay of several decades in approaching the Court

2. Whether the State's continued possession of the land after the expiry of the 1948 Act is lawful in the absence of a notice under Section 9(3A) of the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

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

Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2020) 2 SCC 569] and Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of H.P. [(2022) 7 SCC 508], establishing that delay and laches cannot defeat a claim for compensation when a person is forcibly dispossessed without due process, as such deprivation constitutes a "continuing cause of action"

The principle that a temporary statute's proceedings die with its expiry unless saved

Section 24 of the 2013 Act, which governs the transition of acquisition proceedings from the repealed 1894 Act to the current 2013 Act

The court reasoned that since the 1948 Act was a temporary statute that expired in 1997, any requisition thereunder also vanished

Because the State failed to convert the requisition into an acquisition via Section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act or revive it via Section 9(3A) of the 1894 Act (inserted by the 1997 Amendment), the State’s continued possession after 1997 became an act of "lawlessness" and trespass

The court rejected the State’s plea of delay, noting that the deprivation of property without compensation shocks the judicial conscience and creates a continuous cause of action

Since the 1894 Act was repealed on January 1, 2014, the State can no longer issue retrospective notices under the old regime

Following the precedent in State of West Bengal v. Mahadeb Khan [MAT 1181 of 2019], the court determined that if the State intends to keep the land, it must initiate a fresh proceeding under the currently active 2013 Act

It overruled the objection of delay, stating that constitutional rights under Article 300A cannot be ignored for administrative convenience

The Court 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 ensure the entire process, including the payment of fair compensation to the petitioners, is completed within four months