+91 9836302989

Rajesh Kshetry’s Winning Case: Nepal Chandra Ghosh & Ors Vs The State of West Bengal

The British government passed Regulation I of the Land Acquisition Act for the first time in 1824. It applied to all of the Bengal provinces that were immediately under the Fort William Presidency. The regulations gave the government the authority to purchase immovable property for the building of roads, canals, or other public purposes at a price that was deemed to be fair and reasonable. In order to confirm the land titles in Calcutta that were bought for public use, Act I of 1850 in 1850 extended some of the Regulation I of 1824’s restrictions to the city.

A railway network was being built at the time, and it was thought that legislation was required to acquire land for the railroads. The introduction of the building acts XXVII of 1839 and XX of 1852 helped to resolve the issues with the construction of public buildings in the cities of Bombay and Madras. The first comprehensive law that applied to all of British India was Act VI of 1857. All earlier laws pertaining to the acquisition and its purpose were repealed. Act X of 1870 was then put into action and then replaced by the entirely independent Land Acquisition Act of 1894 in order to fix some of its shortcomings.

The government is obligated to perform public work. They have to deal with construction for this most of the time. And they need land for this. Additionally, it’s probable that they occasionally require private property. In this scenario, the government’s authority to seize the land supersedes the owners’ ownership rights. For the benefit of public projects, the government may purchase private land. It’s known as land acquisition.

The procedure by which the government can purchase private land is known as land acquisition. Any other private property may be included in this. Typically, it is done to establish infrastructure for public use, and promote urbanization, development, and industrialization.


The idea of eminent domain serves as the foundation for state land acquisition. This ideology says that the government can do whatever it sees as best for the people. It is based on two Latin notions of politics.


  • Public welfare is of utmost importance.


  • The public good is more important than the individual good


Eminent domain is the foundation for the concept of land acquisition in India. Any private property may be purchased by the state for public purposes. Up until 1979, when the 44th Amendment changed it to a constitutional or legal right, the right to property was a basic right. No person “shall be dispossessed of his/her property except by the authority of law,” according to the amendment.


Therefore, the High Court, rather than the Supreme Court, is the available remedy in cases of property rights in India. No law that violates a person’s property rights may be contested. However, according to the constitution, no land can be taken over by the government without payment. Land acquisition is a related topic.

Indian land is acquired in one of three methods.


– Acquisition pursuant to the 2013 Land Acquisition Act


– Through numerous additional Acts


– By way of negotiating


The major law that governs land acquisition and defines rules and regulations for providing compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected people in India is known as the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013.


The Land Acquisition Act 2013 will apply to you if the land was purchased in 2013.


We advise you to file a Writ Petition in order to request compensation from the government. What factors will the court examine when deciding how much compensation to award? first, the land’s market value on the date the 57 [notice under section 4, sub-section (1)] was published;


secondly, the harm incurred by the interested party as a result of the removal of any standing crops or trees that may have been on the property at the time the Collector obtained possession of it;


thirdly, the harm (if any) incurred by the interested party upon the Collector’s taking control of the property as a result of disconnecting such property from his other property;


Fourthly, any harm (if any) incurred by the interested party at the time the Collector took possession of the property as a result of the purchase negatively impacting his other property, whether moveable or immovable, in any other way, or his income;


Fifthly, any reasonable costs associated with the move of residence or place of business if the interested party is required to do so as a result of the Collector’s purchase of the land; and


Let us look into a relevant case in this regard.


Rajesh Kshetry’s Winning Case: Nepal Chandra Ghosh & Ors Vs The State of West Bengal

The case of Nepal Chandra Ghosh & Ors versus The State of West Bengal/ Joint Secretary. Govt. of West Bengal/Asst. Secretary. Govt. of West Bengal/Asst. Secretary. Housing Dept./District Magistrate/Addl. Dist. Magistrate/Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Burdwan was litigated by Senior Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kshetry. He was handling the case on behalf of the petitioner Nepal Chandra Ghosh & Ors.

What is the issue?                                                                  

The issue was that Nepal Chandra Ghosh owned 12 acres of land situated at Karjona Mouza, Bhatar, Burdwan, which was taken away by Govt. of West Bengal & Ors. for construction of a Housing Scheme under the West Bengal Housing Board without serving any Order whatsoever under relevant Orders to the petitioners.  The respondents, on one pretext or other, failed/refused to pay the rent/occupational charges to the petitioner.

After trying various ways and means to sort out this matter, they could not get any respite. Failing to receive any compensation, the petitioners knocked on Senior Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kshetry’s door to find a suitable solution to the problem faced by them.

This property dispute was initiated in the year 1999. The learned judge appreciated the appropriate arguments by Senior Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kshetry and ordered the respondents to repay the compensation money.

This long-drawn case was solved under Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kshetry. He once again succeeded in providing relief to the harassed petitioners.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Yes I'm Interested

Yes I'm Interested