(1.) By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent authorities for not giving effect to the notices in connection with LAP Case No. 3 of 1982-83 which have been annexed with the instant writ petition with the mark Annexures ' 'A' and 'G' with a further prayer for declaring the land acquisition proceeding as initiated by the respondent authorities as wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction.
(2.) In course of his submission Mr. Gayen, learned Advocate for the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the order dtd. 25/3/1992 as passed in connection with this case by a co-ordinate Bench whereby and whereunder the instant writ petition was dismissed. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the order dtd. 19/8/1993 as passed by a Division Bench of this High Court in FMAT 63 of 1993 wherein the said order dtd. 25/3/1992 was set aside and the instant writ petition was remanded back for adjudication afresh. It is further submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that such remand is in the nature of an open remand.
(3.) Mr. Gayen in course of his argument at the very outset draws attention of this Court to Annexures ' 'A' and 'G' to the instant writ petition being copies of the notice of LAP Case No. 3 of 1982-83. Attention of this Court is drawn to Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act of 1894'). It is submitted by Mr. Gayen that it is an admitted position that the aforesaid two notices were published only in one newspaper which is contrary to the provision of Sec. 4 of the said Act of 1894 and, therefore, on this ground alone the aforesaid two notices preceding the land acquisition proceeding may be quashed. It is further submitted by Mr. Gayen that on perusal of Sec. 4 of the said Act of 1894 it would reveal that the legislative intent to publish the said notice under Sec. 4 of the said Act of 1894 is mandatory in nature and is not directory.