Party Challenging Land Acquisition Proceedings Must Establish Locus, Any Relief Qua Compensation Can Be Sought Only By Erstwhile Owner: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has made it clear that a person challenging the land acquisition proceedings or claiming any relief with regard to Award / compensation must first establish its locus standi.

Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya observed,

"since the petitioner was not the original owner of the land from who the land was acquired by the State in 1972, the petitioner cannot seek a direction on the State to produce proof of Award / compensation. This direction or any relief with regard to Award / compensation can only be claimed by the erstwhile owner from who the land was acquired."

Petitioner claimed that no such Award was ever made for acquiring the land which would consequently prove that the land continued to remain in the possession of the erstwhile owners of the land before it was allegedly acquired by the State in December, 1972. It was submitted that the very fact of the Award not being passed for the acquisition proceedings would prove that the land did not vest in the State on and from 1972.

Upon considering the materials on record, Justice Bhattacharya observed that to challenge the process of acquisition, the petitioner must first show a right for claiming the aforesaid relief. However, the petitioner was not able to show any connection with the erstwhile owner or a surviving interest in claiming compensation.

"The petitioner admittedly came into the picture much later in 2006/2008 as reflected from the Title Deeds. However, since the petitioner was not the original owner of the land from who the land was acquired by the State in 1972, the petitioner cannot seek a direction on the State to produce proof of Award / compensation," it held.

Court added, "Even if it is assumed that the petitioner’s argument of the acquisition proceedings not being in accordance with law is correct, the petitioner must first satisfy the requirement of locus for approaching the writ court."

Hence, the court held that petitioner is disentitled to claim any consequential relief.