SUPROVAT GHOSH Vs. STATE
LAWS(CAL)-1983-9-1
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 06,1983

SUPROVAT GHOSH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Manoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. - (1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by seven legal practitioners who ordinarily act, plead and practice in the Judges' Court at Alipore and also before the Civil authorities connected with requisition and acquisition of properties in the district of 24 Paraganas. Empowered with Vakalatnamas they have been representing their clients at every stage of acquisition proceedings, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and receiving payments on their behalf. By an order dated Dec. 21, 1982 the Additional District Magistrate (L.R.) 24 Paraganas intimated all concerned that all payments to awardees of Land Acquisition Cases would be made by Account payee cheques direct to the parties on proper identification and not through Lawyers. Aggrieved by the above order the petitioners filed this writ application on Feb. 8, 1983.
(2.) For expeditious hearing of the application the Court directed the petitioners to serve copies of the application upon the State of West Bengal and the other respondents. When the writ application was pending hearing, some awardees filed an application for being added as parties in the main writ application whereupon this Court ordered that the application would be taken up for consideration at the time of hearing of the writ application. Another application was filed by the writ petitioners for amendment of the writ application to include a challenge of a subsequent order dated Feb. 10, 1983 issued by the Collector and District Magistrate, 24 Paraganas whereby the earlier order was suspended and all concerned were informed that the cheque would be issued in the name of the individual who was to receive the compensation and would be delivered to him or his duly authorised agent.
(3.) The parties wanting to be added, being awardees, were certainly interested parties; and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the amendment application was also required to be entertained. For those considerations, the learned Advocate appearing for the awardees was heard and at the time of hearing of the original writ application arguments were allowed to be canvassed by the parties on the legality and propriety of the order dated Feb. 10, 1983 also. A formal order allowing those applications is therefore passed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.