DILIP KUMAR ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition is a notification dated 3rd May, 2001 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and published in the Sandhya Aajkal on 4 th May, 2001. The facts and circumstances of this case may briefly be summarised as follows: By a notification dated 14th September, 1965 issued under section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962 a piece of land including pacca building therein measuring 5 bighas more or less was requisitioned by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, 24 Pgs. (North), for the purpose of setting up a fire station at a monthly rental of Rs. 1,800/-. On or with effect from 10th July, 1968 the Defence of India Act, 1962 became inoperative. The property was however not derequestioned except for a portion of the pacca construction which was released in the year 1962 itself. A writ petition was filed seeking release of the premises, registered as CR No.3683 (W) of 1981, which was disposed of by an order dated 15th September, 1983 directing the authorities to consider the representation of the writ petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 6th December, 1985 by a Division Bench of this Court directing the State to release the property and to make over the vacant possession to the owners. The State was also directed to pay ad hoc occupation charges subject to finalisation of the actual dues. The Division Bench however added that the order was without prejudice to the right of the State to validly acquire the premises fully or any part thereof in accordance with law. The possession was not made over to the owners. A notice instead under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 was issued by the State which was challenged by the petitioners and their writ petition was registered as C.O. No. 934 (W) of 1986. The writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 11th September, 1981. The petitioners preferred an appeal which was registered as FMAT No.3236 of 1989. During the pendency of the appeal both the parties arrived at a settlement in pursuance whereof a compromise petition was filed by the parties jointly in November 1998. An affidavit on behalf of the State of West Bengal, affirmed on 18th March, 2001 by one Shri Haider, affirming the settlement arrived at between the parties was filed wherein the following amongst other averments were made:

(2.) The pending appeal was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 6th April, 2001. Although the compromise petition also appears to have been listed along with the appeal but the Appellate Court did not advert to that aspect at all and decided the appeal solely on the question of legality of the requisition dated 10th January, 1986. The Appellate Court held that the requisition was illegal. The appeal, therefore, was allowed with a consequent direction upon the State to make over vacant and peaceful possession of the entire premises within a period not later than 4 weeks as also to pay the occupation charges.

(3.) The State aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Court preferred a special leave petition wherein reference was specifically made to the compromise arrived at between the parties. That, as a matter of fact, was one of the grounds advanced on behalf of the State before the Apex Court for interfering with the order of the Appellate Court which reads as follows: