JADABENDRA NATH JANA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 12.3.1996 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing an application by which Land Acquisition proceedings were challenged. Aggrieved by the order the owners have preferred this appeal. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows :

(2.) The writ petitioners are the owners of the subject piece of land. The Patashpore Thana Cooperative Rice Mill Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) unlawfully encroached the land belonging to the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners and/or their predecessor-in-interest, for recovery of land from the company, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 165 of 1980. The suit was decreed and execution levied. The company preferred an appeal before this Court which was registered as F.A. No. 305 of 1987. A conditional stay was granted on 27.8.1987 by a Division Bench of this Court directing the company to deposit the costs which does not even appear to have been deposited by the company. Therefore the stay of the operation of the decree is no longer there but the appeal is pending.

(3.) The Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal by a letter dated 20.8.1980 proposed to the Land Acquisition Collector, Midnapore for acquisition of the said piece of land for the benefit of the said company and directed the latter to initiate acquisition proceedings under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act for the company and to submit draft notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act together with preliminary inspection report under Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition Company Rules, 1963 for necessary action. A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 13.3.1987. By the said notification applicability of section 5A of the said Act was dispensed with in exercise of power reserved under sub-section (4) of section 17 thereof. It appears that declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 3.8.1987. The writ petitioners challenged the aforesaid acquisition proceedings inter alia on the ground that there has been non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition Companies Rules, 1963; no agreement as required under section 39 of the Land Acquisition Act has been entered into. Since there was non-compliance of Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition Companies Rules the writ petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing. These grounds were however taken in affidavit-in-reply.