Calcutta High Court on Tuesday upheld that tenants of private properties acquired for Metro Railway construction are eligible for compensation, even if the landowner has already been compensated. The case involved a land acquisition for the Joka-BBD Bag Metro corridor, particularly for the Mominpur (Ex) to Esplanade section.
This landmark judgment addressed the rights of tenants in land acquisition cases, where the land is being repurposed for public use. The tenants, who were living in a property adjacent to the Consulate General of Nepal in Kolkata, had approached the High Court after their premises were acquired by the authorities for the metro project. While the HC agreed with the metro authorities that the acquisition was for a public purpose and did not interfere with the process, it acknowledged the tenants’ right to receive compensation as per the law. Justice Aniruddha Roy, in his judgment, cited Section 9 of the 1978 Land Acquisition Act, which includes tenants under the category of “persons interested in the land,” thus granting them the right to compensation. The metro authorities had acquired 105.3 square meters of land from the Consulate office for track alignment work, but after the consulate objected to this acquisition, a second acquisition took place in 2022, involving a larger portion of land from an adjacent property. Senior advocates representing the tenants argued that the second acquisition, made to balance the land required from the consulate, was not for the public purpose of the metro project, but the metro authorities contended that it was necessary for the successful completion of the project.
The judgment has sparked significant conversation, with many appreciating the HC’s stance on ensuring fair compensation for tenants, a group often overlooked in such acquisitions. People see this as a win for tenant rights, with greater acknowledgment of their involvement in land transactions. However, some also view it as a reminder of the complexities involved in land acquisition cases, particularly when balancing public interest with individual rights. The metro project’s progress is seen as crucial for the city’s development, but the case has shed light on the importance of safeguarding the interests of all those impacted, not just property owners.
