RAJENDRA KUMAR RUIA Vs. GOVT OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Rule upon the respondents to show cause why Writs in the nature of Mandamus, Certiorari and Prohibition should not issue for direction upon the respondents to recall a Notice issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and for quashing and prohibiting of certain proceedings started under the said Act.

(2.) The petitioners are two minor co-parceners of a joint Hindu Mitakshara family. The case of the petitioners is that premises No. 151/1, Baithakkhana Road and 98, Akhil Mistry Lane belong to the said joint family of the petitioners and the petitioners are separately entitled to one eighth share each in the said premises. By two indentures of leases dated the 4th June 1910 and 7th September 1929 the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners granted leases in respect of. the said properties in favour of the then trustees of an educational institution then known as Ripon College and now known as Surendra Nath College. The leases were for a period up to 31st March, 1981. It is alleged that for the first time on or about the 5-2-1951 a Notice issued under section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act was served upon the mother and natural guardian of the petitioners requiring disclosure of the names of persons interested in the said premises, the extent and nature of such interest and certain other particulars as mentioned in the said Notice. It is further stated in the petition that although the land acquisition proceedings appear to have been started in or about February 1949 when the declaration for acquisition was made, the petitioners were not made parties to such proceedings nor were they served with any notice in respect thereof nor did they ever receive any intimation of such proceedings. It is stated that the Surendra Nath College is a profit-making organisation and the acquisition is not for a public purpose but for benefiting the private organisation and as such is illegal and void. The petitioner's fundamental rights as to equality before the law and equal protection of the law are alleged to have been violated by the acquisition proceedings.

(3.) In the circumstances the petitioners have moved this Court for the reliefs stated above.