ABDUL LATIF MULLICK Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), lands in full and in Plots Nos. 1376 and 1377. Jurisdiction List No. 108, P. S. Pandua, Village Pandua, District Hooghli. were sought to be acquired for a public purpose viz. for construction of office-cum-quarters of the Sectional Officers at Pandua for Rural Damodar Irrigation. Such notification was dated 22nd September, 1972, and was issued in the extraordinary issues of the Calcutta Gazette on 28th December 1972. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the lands as notified. It is the case of the petitioners that within the period as prescribed, the State of West Bengal had not published any declaration under Section 6 of the said Act, in respect of the plot of lands as mentioned in the notification under Section 4, by giving the boundaries, approximate areas and Khatian numbers and on 9th August 1974, for the first time, the petitioners received notices under Clauses (3) and (4) of Sections 9 and 11 of the said Act, whereby they were asked to produce documents, in the matter of compensation to be awarded for the concerned acquisition. It is their further case that they made representations to the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Damodar Valley Project, Respondent No. 1, claiming that the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act, did not declare the needs of acquisition of the plots in question and as such, such acquisition amongst other grounds, was bad. The acquisition in question was also claimed in the said representation to be illegal, without jurisdiction and made in colourable exercise of statutory powers, apart from being in mala fide use of the same. The petitioners have further made representations that there were other alternative vacant plots in the neighbouring area and the purposes of the acquisition in question, could be satisfied by acquiring those plots and thereby to realising the plots as notified, the more so when, in those plots, there were valuable structures and residential houses of the petitioners,

(2.) The above representation, the petitioners have stated, was not acceded to and it is their allegation that without duly applying their mind, as to the suitability of the lands in question, the authorities concerned proceeded with the concerned acquisition.

(3.) After this, on or about 12th April 1975, the petitioners were served with notice under Section 12 (2) of the said Act, whereby they were asked to receive compensation on 19th April 1975. The concerned award, according to the petitioners, was made ex parte. The notice as mentioned above also informed that the compensation of the lands in question, under Section 16 of the said Act, would be taken on 24th April 1975,