State of West Bengal vs Santi Ceramics Pvt. Limited 2025 INSC 1222 - Land Acquisition Act

Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Orders quashing acquisition proceedings may operate either in personam or in rem. Where the Court quashes acquisition on grounds personal to individual objectors—such as vitiated consideration of their specific objections under Section 5-A—the relief operates in personam and benefits only those parties who contested the matter before judicial forums. On the other hand, where the Court declares the entire process void ab initio on grounds going to the root of acquisition—the relief operates in rem. It is thus clear that the benefits of quashing do not accrue to persons who were not parties unless the Court has struck down the entire acquisition on fundamental grounds applicable to all- he objections under Section 5-A raise issues personal to each landowner. Upon rejection of such objections, the aggrieved party must approach judicial forums to challenge the same and mere filing of objections does not exhaust remedies available in law. To further simplify, claimants who do not file objections or pursue judicial challenge cannot contend that Section 5-A inquiry is vitiated, nor can they seek quashing of Section 6 declaration on that ground - In the event objections are not pursued through litigation, the notification becomes conclusive proof of waiver. (Para 19-20)

Practice and Procedure - Extraordinary judicial intervention is warranted when systemic barriers prevent certain classes from accessing ordinary remedies, not when parties possess adequate means to vindicate their rights. Relief conceived to prevent impoverishment among the disadvantaged cannot extend to commercial enterprises with financial capacity and institutional sophistication (Para 15)- Permitting industrial entities to claim restoration benefits from litigation they chose not to pursue would establish an undesirable precedent. Such an approach would incentivize strategic inaction, encouraging parties to remain dormant during protracted litigation only to emerge as claimants after favourable outcomes are secured by others. This would undermine both the targeted nature of remedial relief and the fundamental principle that legal benefits flow from active pursuit of remedies, not passive opportunism. (Para 26)