Does the Calcutta High Court reaffirm that a purchaser after a Section 4 notification acquires no title, and that acquired land—once vested—cannot be divested even if unutilized, thereby justifying notices under Section 26 for unauthorized occupation?
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/6329/2019 of GANGABEN PATEL Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0149382019 |
| Date of Registration | 18-03-2019 |
| Decision Date | 26-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak |
| Court | Calcutta High Court, Appellate Side |
| Bench | Single-Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Upholds existing Supreme Court precedent; binding on subordinate courts |
| Affirms / Overrules | Affirms Supreme Court precedents on Section 4 notifications (notably V. Chandrasekaran) |
| Type of Law | Statutory interpretation; property law; administrative law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | On publication of a Section 4(1a) notice under the West Bengal Land (Requisition & Acquisition) Act, 1948, the land vests absolutely in the State, free from all encumbrances. A person who purchases after such notification acquires no title and cannot challenge acquisition proceedings, their only remedy being compensation. Once vested, land cannot be divested—even if not used for the original purpose. Under the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, highway land deemed property of the Central Government and unauthorized occupation falls squarely under Section 26, requiring notice and eviction. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
| Citations | See “Judgments Relied Upon” above. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in India |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts confronting post-notification land transactions |
| Follows | V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. v. Administrative Officer & Ors., (2012) 12 SCC 133 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that any sale of land after a Section 4(1a) notification is void against the State, leaving the buyer with only a compensation claim.
- Reaffirms that once land vests in the State free from encumbrances, it cannot be divested or restored—even if unused for decades.
- Highway land acquired or vested is deemed Central Government property under Section 23 of the 2002 Act.
- Unauthorized occupation of such highway land triggers mandatory Section 26 notice and eviction, regardless of subsequent private conveyances.
- Mutation records and tax payments cannot override the statutory effect of the acquisition notification.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The land was validly requisitioned in 1962–63 and, on publication of the 1 Dec 1964 notification under Section 4(1a) of Act II of 1948, vested absolutely in the State free of encumbrances.
- The Supreme Court (e.g., V. Chandrasekaran) holds that purchasers after a Section 4 notification acquire no title and cannot challenge acquisition; their sole remedy is compensation.
- Once land vests in the State, it cannot be divested or restored, even if unutilized or for other purposes.
- Section 23 of the Control of National Highways Act, 2002 deems all acquired highway land property of the Central Government.
- The petitioner’s post-acquisition purchase is void; her occupation is unauthorized.
- Under Section 26 of the 2002 Act, NHAI properly issued notice for removal of unauthorized occupation and conducted eviction.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The land has remained unutilized for over 50 years and lies away from the highway, exhausting its original purpose.
- Subsequent registered conveyances and long possession (30+ years) confer title by adverse possession.
- Mutation and tax payments in her name were not contested.
- Mandamus jurisdiction under Article 226 should direct de-requisition and release of land.
- Notice under Section 26 cannot lie against a bona fide purchaser.
Respondent No. 2 (NHAI)
- The entire plot was acquired in 1962–63; compensation paid; possession handed to NHAI.
- Purchase by the petitioner after statutory vesting is void; she holds no title.
- Occupation is unauthorized; Section 26 notice was properly issued in 2018.
- Eviction drive followed court directions in W.P. 11604(W) of 2017.
State Respondents
- Acquisition under Act II of 1948 was completed; award and publication formalities observed.
- Petitioner is a post-acquisition purchaser; transaction void ab initio.
- NHAI as requiring body must remove unauthorized occupants in the interest of traffic safety.
Factual Background
In 1962–63, land in Howrah was requisitioned for stocking yards for NH-6 under Section 3 of Act II of 1948. A Section 4(1a) notice was published on 1 Dec 1964, vesting the land in the State; compensation was paid and possession delivered to NHAI. Between 2002 and 2008, the petitioner acquired portions by registered deeds and cultivated part of it. Following a court-directed joint inspection, NHAI issued a Section 26 notice on 30 Nov 2018 for unauthorized occupation, leading to an eviction drive and this writ challenge.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 4(1a)–(2), Act II of 1948: Notification vests requisitioned land absolutely in the State, ending the requisition period.
- Section 23, Control of National Highways Act, 2002: All highway land acquired vests in the Central Government as owner.
- Section 24(1), 2002 Act: Prohibits occupation of highway land without written permission.
- Section 26, 2002 Act: Empowers highway administration to serve notice and remove unauthorized occupation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- Pandit Leela Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 2112
- Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 540
- U.P. Jal Nigam v. M/s. Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 1170
- V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. v. Administrative Officer & Ors., (2012) 12 SCC 133
- Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229