Acquired Land Once Vested In State Cannot Be Reclaimed Even If Unused; Subsequent Purchasers Gain No Title: Calcutta High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Calcutta, Single Bench of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, dismissed a writ petition filed by subsequent purchasers of land seeking its release from a land acquisition proceeding initiated for the diversion of Jessore Road (NH-12), holding that land once vested in the State free from all encumbrances cannot be returned to former owners or their successors, even if portions remain unutilised. The Court further held that subsequent purchasers carry no right to contest acquisition proceedings, and that entries in revenue records, including mutation, confer no ownership over property already vested in the State.
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking setting aside of an order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, North 24 Parganas at Barasat, and sought issuance of a release order declaring that land measuring about 26.38 decimals in Dag No. 502 was free from acquisition proceedings. Alternatively, a writ of mandamus was sought declaring the acquisition proceedings relating to the said land as illegal.
The dispute arose from acquisition of several plots of land at Mouza Gouripur and Mouza Doharia in the district of North 24 Parganas for diversion of Jessore Road forming part of National Highway-12. The petitioners claimed that although approximately 24 decimals of land in CS Dag No. 502 had been acquired, only 11.62 decimals were actually utilized and the remaining portion remained vacant. According to them, the unutilized portion measuring about 12.38 decimals along with the remaining unacquired portion of about 14 decimals was lying adjacent to Jessore Road.
The petitioners claimed to have purchased the entire land measuring 26.38 decimals through six deeds from the heirs and legal representatives of the original owners and asserted that their names had been recorded in the record of rights. They submitted a representation seeking a release order declaring the land free from government encumbrances. When no decision was communicated, they approached the High Court earlier, after which the authority passed the impugned order rejecting their claim. The State contended that 24 decimals of land had been validly acquired, an award had been declared, and possession had already been handed over to the requiring body, thereby vesting the land in the State free from all encumbrances.
The Court examined the earlier order dated 12.05.1969 relied upon by the petitioners and recorded that “the order dated 12.05.1969 was passed on consent of the parties… such order is confined to the petitioners and the added petitioners.” It further observed that “it is not the case of the petitioners that their vendors were parties in the said writ petition or were the added petitioners therein.”
On this basis, the Court stated that “the order dated 12.05.1969 or the subsequent orders more particularly the order dated 10.12.1973 cannot enure to the benefit of the writ petitioners.”
The Court noted the factual findings recorded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer that “CS Plot no. 502 in Mouza Gouripur along with other plots were involved in a land acquisition proceeding… Award was declared… Possession of the acquired land… was taken over and… handed over to the Requiring Body.”
After examining these records, the Court stated that “upon declaration of award and handing over possession of the portion of the land in Dag No. 502… such land stood vested upon the Government free from all incumbrances.”
Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court recorded that “once the land is acquired and it vests in the State free from all incumbrances, it is not the concern of the land owner whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose.” It further stated that “the State neither has the requisite power to re-convey the land to the person interested nor can such person claim any right of restitution… unless there is some statutory mandate to this effect.”
Regarding the status of the petitioners as subsequent purchasers, the Court recorded that “any incumbrances created by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of the notification… do not bind the State.” It further observed that “a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to challenge the legality of the acquisition proceeding.”
The Court therefore stated that “the petitioners being subsequent purchasers did not acquire any valid title in respect of the portion of CS Dag No. 502… which was the subject matter of the acquisition proceeding.”
Addressing reliance on entries in the revenue records, the Court recorded that “mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value of title.” It further observed that “entries in the revenue records have only fiscal purpose… and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries.”
The Court concluded that “since the land stood vested with the State, the lawful possession is deemed to be of the State.” It therefore recorded that “the Government is not bound by the entries in the revenue records in the name of the petitioner.”
The Court directed: “the order impugned is a well-reasoned order. The said order does not suffer from infirmity. This Court accordingly holds that the petitioner is not entitled to an order for return of the alleged unutilized portion of the plot in question. For all the reasons as aforesaid this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Aaccordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Prantick Ghosh, Mr. Prasad Bhattacharyya, Ms. Shravani Ghosh, Ms. Poulami Saha
For the Respondents: Mr. Chandi Charan De, Learned Additional Government Pleader, Ms. Reshma Chatterjee
Case Title: Nirmal Mondal vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 28229 of 2025
Bench: Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
