CASE NAME: JR: Nirmal Mondal v. Union of India & Ors.
CASE NUMBER: WPA 28229 of 2025
COURT: The High Court of Calcutta,
DATE: 09.03.2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
FACTS
The Petitioners claim the ownership of 26.38 decimals of land in C.S/R.S Dag No. 502 in Mouza Gouripur, 24 Parganas District (North) by virtue of 6 purchase deeds from the heirs, heiresses and legal representatives of the original owners Sushil Ranjan Majumdar and Satya Ranjan Majumdar, both deceased. The said land has been a subject of LA Case Nos. D-8N/1966-67 and D-24/1961-62, wherein 24 decimals of land out of 38 decimals was acquired for the construction of Jessore Road (NH-12) diversion.
In a subsequent case being Civil Rule No. 2195(W) of 1967, the Court ordered on the consent of the parties, to return the unutilized part of the acquired land. However, the Petitioners alleged that 12.38 decimals of land out of the 24 decimals land acquired, was unutilized and abandoned by the respondent authorities and is lying vacant and adjacent to Jessore Road. The 14 (38-24) decimals of the unacquired portion of the land is also lying vacant and adjacent to Jessore Road.
The Petitioners filed a petition before the District Magistrate for the release of 26.38 decimals of land. The matter was referred to Officer-in-Charge of the Land Acquisition Department, where the decision was not conveyed to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the events, the Petitioners filed a writ petition being WPA 14232 of 2024, which was disposed of by a co-ordinate bench directing Special Land Acquisition Officer, 24 Parganas (North) at Barasat to pass a reasoned order. The said order is being challenged in this writ petition of mandamus.
ISSUES
- Whether the consent order in Civil Rule No. 2195(W) of 1967 binds the respondent of this land?
- Whether the petitioners being subsequent purchasers have the right to challenge the legality of the acquisition proceeding and claim the release of the alleged unutilized land?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 226 of the the Constitution of India – Writ jurisdiction of High Court
- Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Formal declaration of acquisition
- Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Absolute vesting of land
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT:
The petitioner contended that the order given in Civil Rule No. 2195(W) of 1967 upon the consent of the parties, wherein the unutilized land post construction was agreed to be returned, is binding on the respondent authorities. It was argued that the petitioners acquired the title to the 26.38 decimals unutilized portion and is in possession of the same, upon the belief that the respondent authorities will be return surplus portion to land losers, thus being entitled to order of release of the surplus land from the Govt.’s acquisition.
The petitioners contended that they have a right to claim return of surplus land relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Jay Singh (2025) INSC 1122. It was further argued that the land cannot be treated as vested land as the Govt. had mutated the names of the petitioners as tenant and accepted rent from them relying on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Panchu Molla vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. (1980) 2 CLJ 1 and Bholanath Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal (2001) 2 CLT 114.
RESPONDENTS:
The respondent argued that the 24 decimals of the land was lawfully acquired and the award was declared many years earlier. It was submitted that the land remain vested in the State free from all encumbrances with the transfer of the possession of land to the Requiring Body and passing of the award.
ANALYSIS
The Court scrutinized records and examined the legal principles governing acquisition and vesting of land in the State. The Court noted that the consent order in Civil Rule No. 2195(W) of 1967 is confined to the petitioners and the added petitioners. The owners from whom petitioners bought the land were neither original petitioners nor added petitioners in that matter, thus being ineligible to reap the benefit of the consent order.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer (2012) 12 SCC 133, which held that once the land is acquired, it vests in the State free from all encumbrances, regardless whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or not. It was further held that the former owner becomes persona non grata once the land vests in the State and is only entitled to compensation. The SC further clarified that the State does not have power to reconvey the land nor can such person claim any right of restitution, unless a statutory provision expressly permits so.
The Court further relied on the Supreme Court decision in Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 698, which held that any transactions or encumbrances created by the original landowner after the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, does not bind the State. If possession of the land is taken after the passing of the award, the land vests absolutely in the State under Section 16, free from all encumbrances. Therefore, a person who purchases the land after such notification cannot challenge the legality of the acquisition as such a purchaser does not acquire a valid title, and the beneficiary of the acquisition is entitled to possess the land free from any such claims.
The Court also relied on the decision of the SC in the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) SCC Online SC 802 and Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (1997) 7 SCC 137, where it was held that mutation to records doesn’t explicitly create or extinguish any right of ownership over property, and are only for fiscal purposes, i.e., to facilitate the collection of land revenue by the authorities. Therefore, a person cannot claim ownership of land solely based on mutation of records.
JUDGMENT
The Court held that the petitioners being subsequent purchasers did not acquire any valid title in respect of the land in CS/RS Dag No. 502 and that the petitioner is not entitled to an order for return of the alleged unutilized portion of the plot in question. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no interference with the order of Special Land Acquisition Officer, 24 Parganas (North) at Barasat, with no order as to costs.
CONCLUSION
The Judgment reinstates that once property is acquired by State, it vested absolutely free from any encumbrances, under the Land Acquisition Act. It upholds that subsequent purchaser’s claims are not valid to challenge the acquisition of the land. It also limited the scope of consent orders and irrelevance of mutation to title, in consonance with the precedents set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: ABIA MOHAMMED KABEER
Read the Judgment copy here.
