KANAILAL MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Rule the petitioners who are 42 in number have challenged the valdity of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated January 25, 1965, which is at annexure 'a' to the petition and the subsequent declaration under section 6 dated 16th July, 1966, which is at annexure 'b' to the petition. Though there are several grounds stated in the petition, one of them has been concluded by a judgment of the Supreme court, reported in (1) AIR 1968 SC 76and1-870 (Ishwarlal v. State of Gujrat), where it has been held that the word arable as used in section 17 of the Land acquisition Act includes not only those which are fit for cultivation but also those which have been actually brought under cultivation.

(2.) THE second point on the merits urg;ed on behalf of the petitioners is that there are certain plots said to be acquired in part of which no proper description has been given either in the notification under section 4 or in the declaration under section 6. So far as the defect in the declaration under section 6 is concerned, it might have been good enoguh for giving the petitioners relief on this ground but for the fact that no less than 31 of the petitioners appear to have applied for compensation in the proceeding under section 9 which has culminated in an award which is subsisting and out of these persons one, namely, petitioner no. 15, Bhriguram Bhunia, has already obtained compensation, in pursuance of that award.

(3.) THE principle upon which relief is given in case of a part acquisition without proper description is; that unless such description is given, the persons affected might not be appraised of the particular portion of which they are to deliver possession and also to claim compensation under the law. But in the instant case it appears that quite a good number of the joint; petitioners fought out the matter at the compensation proceedings so that they had no doubts as to what portion was going to be acquired. Apart from that, it has been held by this Court in a decision reported in (2) 65 CWN 909 (Ganesh Nayak v. L. A. Collector) that in a case where a joint petition is made by several petitoiners if the claim of one is attended by some defects on his part, no relief can be granted to the rest. This principle rests on the reasoning that the claim of the petitioners being joint, the Court cannot make any apportionment if one fails because of his conduct. In the instant case the facts are more serious than those in the reported decision in 65 CWN 909, inasmuch as, it is not one but as many as 31 petitioners who pursued the matter in the compensation proceeding resulting in an award. It has been pointed out in the decision reported in 65 CWN 909, that once an award has been made in the presence of a person aggrieved by the proceeding under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, Ms further remedy would be against the award under section 18 of the Land acquisition Act, and the like. He cannot thereafter turn round to claim to reopen the entire land acquisition proceedings on the ground of defects which might have been available if the award had not been made. It may be mentioned that at the hearing the learned Advocate for the respondents also drew my attention to the fact that a large number of petitioners in fact raised an objection under section 5 (A)to the notification and under section 4 of the said Act a grievance has been made by the petitioners that there was no due service of the extract of the notification in the locality. But I am satisfied from the papers produced as" well as from annexure 'b' to the counter-affidavit that the said notification was not only published in various offices near about the disputed land but also in the market place at the locality.