GITA RANI MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for amendment filed in connection with W.P.15591(W) of 2003. The writ petition was affirmed on 26th of September, 2003. In the writ petition the petitioner made the following prayers :

(2.) OUT of the above -mentioned prayers by virtue of prayer B the writ petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, their men, agents and subordinates as to why impugned notice and/or notification issued by the State authorities for acquisition of the writ petitioner's land without taking recourse to the provisions of law should not be quashed, cancelled and/or set aside. Number of petitioners have joined together and challenged the acquisition proceeding in respect of various lands description of which has been mentioned in the writ petition. In the writ proceeding affidavits have been filed by the respondents way back in 2003. From the record it appears that an affidavit -inopposition was affirmed on 17th November, 2003 by Kajal De Biswas, Additional Land Acquisition Officer, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. By the said affidavit -in -opposition the said respondents dealt with the entire case of the petitioner and the acquisition in respect of the lands. Annexures to the said affidavit disclose notifications in connection with the acquisition proceeding. One of the notifications being annexed as Annexure R -1 dated 11th July, 2002 shows that the said notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act (I) of 1894 (Land Acquisition Act, 1894) and it also mentions that the said notification has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -Section (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Governor was pleased to direct that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act shall not apply to the lands as described in the Schedule to the said notification to which in the opinion of the Governor, the provisions of sub -Section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act would be applicable. Under Section 17 special power is being exercised by the Government in case of urgency. The petitioners have filed their reply to the said affidavit -in -opposition and in their reply they have dealt with the averments made in the said affidavit -inopposition.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition some of the petitioners expired and substitution has been duly made. In the pending writ petition in which affidavits and counter -affidavits were filed in 2003 and/or 2004 the writ petitioner sought permission of the Court on 19th December, 2011 for filing a supplementary affidavit but the same was opposed by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.8 and 9 and as a result, the said supplementary affidavit could not be filed. On 19th December, 2011 this Court passed the following order : -