BIJOY KRISHNA BERA @ BIJOY BERA UTTAM KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. — WPA/15684/2025

Case under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act ,2013 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 22-Jul-2025

CNR: WBCHCA0318292025

Filing Number

WPA/15513/2025

Filing Date

10-Jul-2025

Registration No

WPA/15684/2025

Registration Date

14-Jul-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

COMPENSATION ( 12 )

Judicial Branch

MANDAMUS SECTION

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act ,2013 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BIJOY KRISHNA BERA @ BIJOY BERA UTTAM KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay BhattacharyyaView PDF

    Case Summary: WPA 15684/2025 Petitioner: Bijoy Krishna Bera Respondent: The State of West Bengal Court: High Court at Calcutta Judge: Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Decision The court allowed the writ petition and directed the State to initiate land acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act within four months, completing all proceedings including compensation payment. Key Facts The petitioner's land (0.29 acres) was requisitioned under the 1948 Act in 1978 for road construction but was never formally acquired. No compensation was paid despite repeated requests since 2004. The 1948 Act expired in 1997, and the 1894 Act was repealed in 2014, leaving the land acquisition incomplete. Key Reasoning The court rejected the State's delay/laches defense, holding that: (1) property deprivation without legal process violates Article 300A; (2) delay cannot negate compensation claims when circumstances shock judicial conscience; (3) the continuous nature of the land use creates ongoing cause of action; and (4) under the 2013 Act, the petitioner is entitled to fair compensation since the land has been utilized for public purpose without proper acquisition procedures or compensation payment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay BhattacharyyaView PDF

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  5. 18-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay BhattacharyyaView PDF

  6. 18-Feb-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  7. 17-Feb-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  8. 16-Feb-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  9. 13-Feb-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  10. 12-Feb-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  11. 11-Feb-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  12. 10-Feb-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  13. 09-Feb-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  14. 06-Feb-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  15. 29-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay BhattacharyyaView PDF

  16. 29-Jan-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  17. 29-Jan-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  18. 28-Jan-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  19. 27-Jan-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  20. 22-Jan-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  21. 21-Jan-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  22. 20-Jan-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  23. 15-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay BhattacharyyaView PDF

  24. 15-Jan-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  25. 07-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay BhattacharyyaView PDF

  26. 07-Jan-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  27. 02-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay BhattacharyyaView PDF

  28. 02-Jan-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  29. 24-Dec-2025

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  30. 23-Dec-2025

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  31. 05-Dec-2025

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  32. 04-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay BhattacharyyaView PDF

  33. 04-Dec-2025

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  34. 03-Dec-2025

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  35. 02-Dec-2025

    New Motion 1

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  36. 14-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay BhattacharyyaView PDF

  37. 14-Nov-2025

    New Motion 1

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

  38. 04-Aug-2025

    New Motion 1

    Hon'ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen

  39. 22-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  40. 10-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPA/15684/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPA 15684/2025 Petitioner: Bijoy Krishna Bera Respondent: The State of West Bengal Court: High Court at Calcutta Judge: Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Decision The court allowed the writ petition and directed the State to initiate land acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act within four months, completing all proceedings including compensation payment. Key Facts The petitioner's land (0.29 acres) was requisitioned under the 1948 Act in 1978 for road construction but was never formally acquired. No compensation was paid despite repeated requests since 2004. The 1948 Act expired in 1997, and the 1894 Act was repealed in 2014, leaving the land acquisition incomplete. Key Reasoning The court rejected the State's delay/laches defense, holding that: (1) property deprivation without legal process violates Article 300A; (2) delay cannot negate compensation claims when circumstances shock judicial conscience; (3) the continuous nature of the land use creates ongoing cause of action; and (4) under the 2013 Act, the petitioner is entitled to fair compensation since the land has been utilized for public purpose without proper acquisition procedures or compensation payment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case