Supreme Court of India· 13 October 2025

What is the effect of accepting the acquisition award without protest and remaining silent for a decade?

The State of West Bengal & Ors. v. M/s Santi Ceramics Pvt. Limited & Anr.

2025 INSC 1222 · Civil Appeal (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 33701/2018)
Coram: Surya Kant; Joymalya Bagchi

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.5-A Land Acquisition Act, 1894 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

The acquisition attains finality against that party through its own inaction. Once the proceedings conclude in an award and possession is taken without challenge, the Court will not entertain a belated grievance from the interested person, and the party cannot seek parity with those who challenged the procedural violations at the earliest opportunity.

Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.4 — s.5-A — s.6 — s.11 — Quashing of acquisition proceedings — Restoration of land — Relief in personam and in rem — Objections not pursued — Waiver — Delay and acceptance of compensation — Public Interest Litigation — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Restoration remedy — Intended beneficiaries — Held: A restoration remedy grounded in the structural incapacity of poor agricultural workers to resist the State does not extend to a commercial enterprise possessing financial capacity and institutional sophistication. The reasoning does not enure to its benefit. (¶15, 18) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.5-A — Quashing order — In personam or in rem — Held further: Where acquisition is quashed on grounds personal to individual objectors, the relief operates in personam and benefits only those who contested before judicial forums. Only a declaration that the entire process is void ab initio operates in rem. (¶19) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.5-A — Objections filed but not pursued — Waiver — Held further: Objections under Section 5-A raise issues personal to each landowner, and mere filing does not exhaust the remedies available in law. Where they are not pursued through litigation, the notification becomes conclusive proof of waiver. (¶20) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Delay — Compensation accepted without protest — Parity refused — Held further: A claimant silent for a decade, who accepted the award without protest while others litigated, cannot seek parity with them. Permitting it would reward strategic inaction and passive opportunism. Appeal allowed. (¶21, 22, 26)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 21Applying these principles, the cause of cultivators and farmers affected by the Singur Project was espoused before the High Court, inter-alia, on grounds that it disproportionately affected vulnerable agricultural communities and fertile land, with procedural violations including vitiated Section 5-A inquiry and non-application of mind by authorities. Respondent No.1 filed objections under Section 5-A on 21.08.2006, which were rejected. Despite possessing financial resources and institutional access, it never pursued the appellate remedies available under the 1894 Act. It accepted the entire compensation amount of INR 14,54,75,744 without protest and remained passive while cultivators pursued litigation for years. Having chosen not to contest the acquisition through available statutory mechanisms, Respondent No.1 now seeks the same relief that was granted to disadvantaged communities through PIL—a classic free-rider problem that judicial remedies cannot encourage.

Paragraph 22Turning to the third aspect, the acquisition attained finality qua Respondent No.1 through its own inaction. Respondent No.1 remained silent for an entire decade from 2006 to 2016, making no attempt to challenge the acquisition despite the award being passed on 25.09.2006. Once the proceedings conclude in the award and possession is taken without challenge, the Court would not entertain any belated grievance from the interested person.[^4] In stark contrast, affected farmers brought their plight before the High Court through PIL in November, 2006 itself— challenging procedural violations at the earliest opportunity. Hence, Respondent No.1 cannot now seek parity and question what had been conclusively settled.

Acts & Sections

s.5-A Land Acquisition Act, 1894s.4 Land Acquisition Act, 1894s.6 Land Acquisition Act, 1894s.11 Land Acquisition Act, 1894

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of The State of West Bengal & Ors. v. M/s Santi Ceramics Pvt. Limited & Anr. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does an order quashing acquisition proceedings benefit persons who were never parties to the challenge?When a court fashions a restoration remedy on the ground that an acquisition disproportionately affected vulnerable communities, who are its intended beneficiaries?Can a commercial or industrial entity claim the benefit of such a restoration remedy under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?What is the effect of filing objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but not pursuing them before a judicial forum?Can a party who did not litigate rely on relief obtained through a Public Interest Litigation brought on behalf of vulnerable persons?Do the passage of time and intervening changes to the acquired land bear on a claim for restoration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections