BHARAT LAL BIJLANI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these two writ petitions dated March 4, 2008 and march 7,2008 respectively are questioning two notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued by the Collector and District magistrate, Paschim Medinipur and published in the Official Gazette on november 27, 2006. The relevant portion of the notification questioned in w. P. No. 4374 (W) of 2008 is set out below:-

(2.) EXCEPT the particulars of the lands, all other things in the other notification are identical with the ones in the notification part whereof has been quoted above. The petitioners claim that they own lands included in the schedules to the notifications. They did not submit any objection under section 5a. The Section 6 declarations were published in the Official gazette on November 27 and 30, 2007. It is submitted that the Collector is in the process of making the awards.

(3.) IN reply to the question why at this belated stage the writ Court should permit the petitioners to question the Section 4 notifications, particularly when they chose not to submit any Section 5a objection, though they were at liberty to do that and in the objection they could contend that the acquisition in question was not for a public purpose, but for a private company, Mr. Sanyal, Counsel for the petitioners, has said that since the acquisition was actually not for a public purpose, but for a private company, and hence the proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction, the petitioners are entitled to approach the writ Court even at this belated stage, and that by not submitting objection under Section 5a they did not forfeit their right to approach the writ Court. He has said that the acquisition is for the fifth respondent in the writ petitions. The fifth respondent is:-