THIKNIKATA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/petitioners have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14.06.2006 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 13255 (w) of 2005 dismissing the petition.

(2.) The appellants/petitioner No. 1 is an association of persons who have challenged the Notification bearing No. 370/LA (SDJA) /13/4 /04-05 of dated 09/09/04 under Section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LA Act' for short) published in the Calcutta Gazette on 23.09.04 in respect of land in the Mouza (s) (1) THIKNIKATHA, J.L. No.74, (2) KAWAKHALI, J.L. No. 75, P.S. Siliguri Dist. Darjeeling, for acquisition of land for development of new township. It is the case of the appellants/writ petitioners that at the relevant time they were an unregistered association and that their members are the owners of plots of land which are proposed to be acquired by the respondent authorities and that majority of them belonged to Schedule Castes. According to them, some of the members of the appellants/petitioners are served with notice under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the LA Act, 1894 (Act 1 of 1894) in respect of acquisition of land for the development of new township. But, most of the members have not been served with the said notice. It is contended by the appellants/writ petitioners that without considering the objections raised by the writ petitioner association and its members which is a statutory requirement under Section 5A of the LA Act, 1894 (Act 1 of 1894), respondents have proceeded to issue declaration under the purported Notification bearing No. 624/ LA (SJDA) / 13 /4 /04-05 of dated 24/12/2004 under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the LA Act, 1894 (Act 1 of 1894) as published in the Calcutta Gazette on 30.12.2004 in respect of land in the Mouza (s) (1) THIKNIKATHA, J.L. No.74, (2) KAWAKHALI, J.L. No. 75, P.S. Siliguri Dist. Darjeeling. As the appellants/writ petitioners were aggrieved by the said notification, legal notice dated 10th May, 2005 was sent to the office of respondent no. 2 which was received on 3rd June, 2000. It is, therefore, contended that the said acquisition proceeding has been initiated in violation of the mandatory provisions of law and, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) After going through the materials on record Learned single Judge found that Naboday Enterprises has filed objection under Section 5A of the LA Act, 1894 (Act -I of 1894) on September 8, 2004, i.e., after the expiry of the statutory period of 30 days and so also the second petitioner who filed her objection on December 20, 2004, whereas, the appropriate authority published the declaration under Section 6 on December 30, 2004 and, therefore, they cannot be heard in the matter. Learned Single Judge also found that the appellants/writ petitioners have been questioning the steps taken by the authorities by filing a petition on July 6, 2005 which has resulted in passing of the interim order which was enforced till the petition came to be filed. The learned single Judge found that the appellants/writ petitioner no. 1 is an unregistered association being not a juristic person would not be a person aggrieved, and as such it would not be entitled to file a writ petition espousing the cause of the affected persons and, therefore, the petition was not maintainable at the instance of the first petitioner. On merit, it is found that the contention of the appellants/writ petitioners that unless provisions of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning & Development) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Town Planning Act, 1979) Sections 16, 61, 73, 74 and 137 are first complied with, the respondents are not entitled or empowered to initiate any acquisition proceedings under the LA Act, 1894 (Act -I of 1894) and as no development plan has been notified, the development authority is not empowered to take possession of the land by initiating proceeding under the LA Act, 1894 (Act - I of 1894) and found favour with the contention of the respondents that the State Government had decided to initiate the acquisition proceedings for the professed public purpose of setting up a new township by engaging the development authority for the purpose, which is not questioned in this case. Acquisition of land under LA Act is within the domain of the State Government. Learned single Judge also found that only on the ground of delay in challenging the Section 4 Notification, it is sufficient to dismiss the writ petition. On examining that the State has complied with all the statutory requirements, learned single Judge found no merit in the contention of the appellants/writ petitioners and dismissed the writ petition.