R.N.Misra, J. - (1.)Owners of certain lands located within the Bhadrak Subdivision of the district of Balasore filed a suit on 12-10-1961 for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from continuing a land acquisition proceeding for the purpose of laying a road on the disputed property. They impleaded in the said suit the State of Orissa represented by the Collector of Balasore and the Land Acquisition Officer, Balasore, as defendants 1 and 2. They also impleaded as many as 12 other defendants under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.)Plaintiffs claimed that some of defendants trespassed over their lands on 25- 1956 with a view to constructing a road and they dug up portions of the land. Thereupon plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 112 of 1956 and obtained a decree. Plaintiffs also claimed damages and obtained a separate decree. As those defendants did not remove the encroachment, plaintiffs levied execution. The defendants with a view to frustrating the decree obtained by the plaintiffs moved the Sub-divisional Officer, Bhadrak, for acquisition of the land at their cost and under his orders deposited the value of the land in the public treasury. Plaintiffs alleged that the construction of the road was not being undertaken by the State of Orissa and payment of compensation was not being made out of the State Fund. When a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was made, plaintiffs objected, but the Land Acquisition Officer (defendant No. 2) brushed aside the objections and recommended acquisition. A declaration as envisaged under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was also made saying that the construction was to be made at public expense which is not a fact. Therefore, the acquisition was void, illegal and mala fide.
(3.)Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement while defendants 4 and 5 filed a separate written statement. The maintainability of the suit was seriously challenged and it was contended, that the acquisition was a valid one and the plaintiffs had no cause of action.