BISWANATH NASKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for injunction in the connected writ petition No. 12399(W) of 1998. The prayers contained in the writ petition appears not only cryptic but couched in a language of ambiguity conveying no sense at all. The prayer in the petition for injunction is for grant of interim order on the land mentioned in the petition as well as claim by the L.A. Collector till the disposal of the main matter. There is no specification about the nature of the interim order prayed for by way of suggestion from the Bar that by implication it is to be deciphered from the main writ petition but that has also not been spelt out in the language of clarity in the connected petition for injunction. It appears that originally there was an order of status quo passed by this court on 14.7.98 for a period of three years which is elapsed. The grievance of the applicant-petitioner is that because of the rotation of the Bench it could not be taken up for hearing in time. This court does not feel inclined to attach any importance to such technicalities as it proposes to deal with the merit of the application for injunction. As already indicated the prayer of the petition for injunction appears to have a lacunic look and the court cannot give a go-bye to the drafting pattern of the petition as otherwise it cannot decipher the meaning of the substance of the prayer. Be that as it may, the grievance of the petitioner is that the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment Act) 1997 came into force on and from 2nd May, 1997. The same has incorporated amendment of section 9 in the earlier Act of 1894 as a result of which in section 3 of the amended Act, the amended provisions have been superadded and the said section 3 has been divided into two categories, namely, sections 3A and 3B. In this case we are concerned only with section 3B which contemplates that the court was served notice to the same on all the persons who are interested in the land. The possession whereof has already been taken on requisition under section 3 of the said Act and notice of such requisition has been published under sub-section 1A of section 4 of the Act and in every such case the provisions of sections 4, 5A, 6, 7, 8 and 16 shall be deemed to have been complied with. From the submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Government, this court has been apprised that the matter is at the door-step of the publication of award. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred from the said submission that the stage is over for compliance of section 16. If that is so, then the irresistable effect of acquisition being effected under section 3 of the parent Act followed by publication under section 4 shall result in possession being already taken on requisition. Therefore, the legal effect of such provision is that as soon as a notice is issued under section 3 of the parent Act followed by publication of notice under section 4(1) (a) of the Act, it must be deemed to be treated that possession of the land has already been taken over. This proposed notice as introduced under the amended provisions of the Act as it has nexus only with regard to publication of award under section 18 and no award can be published unless such notice is duly served on the person interested and effected and they must be given due opportunities to file their objection. Therefore, the said notice has co-relation with the passing of the award and not the act of taking over possession by the State. It is salient to mention that the proviso added to section 4 of the amended provision of the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1997 postulates that in respect of acquisition of land referred to in sub-section 3(a) and 3(b) that award shall be made within a period of two years from the date of issue of public notice under section 9. Therefore, the period prescribed for publishing of award in terms of the aforesaid provision is for two years from the issuance of the notice either under section 3A or section 3B of the amended provisions of the Act. Therefore, the compliance of the said notice or infraction of the said notice canot make any inroad into the fabric of the question of possession because the possession effected as soon as notice under section 3 is issued followed by publication under section 4(1) (a) of the partent Act. Therefore, this court feels that in that view of the matter the writ petitioner has not succeeded in making out any prima facie case for injunction on legal matrix of the controversy and as such it is constrained to dismiss the application for injunction on contest.

(2.) So far as other petitioner for injunction preferred by the West Bengal Housing Board in view of the order passed in the earlier applications, no fresh order need by passed on the said applications. As such, the same stands disposed of.

(3.) Let there be an order of stay of this order for ten days from date to give the writ petitioner an opportunity to explore his avenues before the higher forum. If urgent certified xerox copy is applied for, the office is directed to issue the same at an early date. Petition disposed of