BIMAL BEHARI SARKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are six in number, obtained a Rule from this Court against five orders made under [section 5a of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, namely, (i) Order, dated March, 23, 1960 made in Case No. 43 of 1960, Prafulla Kumar Sarker and others v. Tapas Roy. (ii) Order, dated May 14, 1959, made in Case No. 42 of 1959, Prafulla Kumar Sarker and others v. Manke Das Rava. (iii) Order, dated September 3, 1958, in Case No. 9 of 1958, Prafulla Kumar Sarker and others v. Bidyadhar Ray. (iv) Order, dated Sept. 3, 1958, in the case between Prafulla Kumar Sarker and others v. Ramani Mohan Sarker. (V) ORDER, dated JUNE 10, 1958, in Case No, 1 of 1958, Manindra Chandra Singha Sarker V. Durga Barman.

(2.) THE petitioners allege that long before May 5, 1953 they had agreed to lease or agreed to sell some of the disputed plots of land to certain persons or had settled some of the disputed plots of land with Chukanidars or undertenants and had, in part performance of the said agreements, or in performance of the settlements, made over actual or physical possession of the disputed lands to those persons, although in some cases formal deeds of transfer or settlement were executed after May 5, 1953. They challenged the provisions of section 5a of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act on diverse grounds and particularly in its application to Coochbehar, where the disputed lands are situate, and obtained Civil Rule No. 407 (W) of 1961. They now apply for leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure to convert their petition into a representative petition on behalf of or for the benefit of all tenants, under tenants, raiyats and jotedars, who are being aggrieved or affected by proceedings taken under section 5a of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.

(3.) ON being questioned whether such a procedure is available to an application for high prerogative Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, Mr. D. N. Das, learned Advocate for the petitioners relied on the observations contained in the following decisions in support of the application. (i) Bejoy Ranjan Rakshit v. B. C. Das Gupta, (A. I. R. 1953 Calcutta 289), in which Bose J. , (as the Chief Justice then was) observed: