Indo-Bangladesh Border Fencing: Calcutta High Court Directs State To Handover Land Acquired In Nine Districts To BSF By March 31

The directions were issued by the Division bench comprising Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen while considering a public interest litigation filed by a former Deputy Chief of Army Staff highlighting large stretches of the Indo-Bangladesh Border remaining unfenced in West Bengal.

The petitioner contended that out of the 4,096.70 km long Indo-Bangladesh border, West Bengal alone accounts for 2,216.70 km, making it the State with the longest international border with Bangladesh. Despite repeated Cabinet approvals since 2016, nearly 26% of the border remains unfenced, allegedly facilitating cross-border infiltration, narcotics trafficking, smuggling of cattle and gold, and circulation of fake Indian currency.

The data regarding the alleged cross-border infiltration, including narcotic trafficking etc. was placed before the Court, which were drawn from Parliamentary answers.

The petitioner stressed that fencing the border was a matter of defence, sovereignty, and national integrity, and urged the Court to ensure expeditious acquisition and handover of land to BSF.

Additional Solicitor General Ashok Kumar Chakrabarti, appearing for the Union government, submitted that land acquisition is a State subject under Entry 23 of List II, but once compensation had been paid and Cabinet approval granted, the State was constitutionally obliged to hand over possession.

He pointed out that out of the required 235 km stretch, only about 71 km of land had been handed over to BSF, despite repeated communications from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, including a letter dated 20 June 2025 from the Union Home Secretary to the Chief Secretary of West Bengal.

“Only about 71km land out of required 235km has been handed over to BSF…It's a proceeding which from 2016 is going on…Time and again there's been cabinet approval to this proceeding...whether doctrine of estoppel and legitimate expectation will apply in case particularly where sovereignty of nation is in question?” ASG argued.

ASG further relied on a conjoint reading of Articles 256, 257, and 355 of the Constitution, arguing that the Union was empowered to issue binding directions to States where national security and protection against foreign aggression were involved.

He rejected the State's explanation that the delay was caused by the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and impending Assembly elections, arguing that neither exercise could justify stalling border security measures.

“Conjoint reading of these 3 articles requires us to take steps. And we have taken steps. Now further handing over possession is required to be done (by State). Is this an explanation that SIR is going on or that elections is due and that all persons are engaged in election duty? SIR is related to those persons who are voters to comply with requirements of certain BLO, govt officers have nothing to do with SIR. SIR is no ground..that entire govt machinery is engaged in SIR? Election has got nothing to do with this...purely simplicter security and safety of border area and adjoining citizens residing there, to avoid crime” he added

During the hearing, the Court asked why Section 40 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, was not invoked in the present case. 

"What we fail to understand is that when such high level meetings were taking place and they (State) are harping on their policy which prima facie does not apply, why it was not informed to them (by the Centre) and why it was not insisted to invoke Section 40"  the Court asked. 

For context, Section 40 deals with special powers in case of urgency to acquire land in certain cases. 

The Centre submitted that all the letters written by Home Secretary and Under Secretary can be deemed to have been issued under Section 40 of the Act. 

The State, on the other hand contended that Section 40 is an exception to the Rules, and can be invoked only in case of an emergency.

"Rule is to notify, thereafter publish, acquire land, pay compensation and if there's any grievance, landowner can apply...this is Rule. Section 40 is exception. It can be invoked in case of emergency...there has to be first a decision of appropriate govt that we will invoke this special emergency provision. Then only scheme of Act can be bypassed.....We are directly purchasing, not acquiring. So section 40, which is to bypass acquisition proceedings, is not applicable" Counsel for the State submitted. 

The State has also submitted that Direct Purchase Policy (DPP) was framed to reduce litigation and disproportionate compensation awards.

The Bench expressed concern over the State's reliance on the DPP, noting that the policy was designed for stalled infrastructure projects and not for matters of national defence.

“Object of your policy is very different...it was framed as infrastructure projects were not taking place, non-completion of bridges...how you have applied it to land which is required for national interest...it is really disturbing...object which has been explicitly mentioned in policy for the purpose of building important infrastructure...whereas we are concerned about national interest...how your policy comes into play here?” the Bench questioned.

The State also argued that Courts could not issue a mandamus directing acquisition in a particular manner, relying on precedent of the Allahabad High Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v City & Indus Development Corporation, (2010 SCC Online All 1124).

After hearing all parties, the Court categorised the issue into three broad categories which includes (i) land already acquired/purchased and paid for but only partial of it is handed over to BSF, (ii) land where acquisition or purchase proceedings have commenced under the Direct Purchase Policy and (iii) Land where no acquisition process has yet begun.

For the first category, the Court held that no justification existed for further delay and directed the State to hand over possession to BSF on or before 31 March 2026, clarifying that SIR or election duties could not be treated as impediments.

For the second category, the State was directed to file an Action Taken Report and to complete the process by 31 March 2026.

For the third category, the Bench said the issue would depend on the applicability and feasibility of invoking Section 40 of the 2013 Act, which would be examined after further hearing.

With these directions, the Court has directed the matter to be listed for hearing in April 2026.

Case Title: Lt. Gen. Dr. Subrata Saha v Union of Indian and Ors.

Case No: WPA(P)/ 450/ 2025