D. P. Wadhwa, J. - (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated June 7, 1996 at a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which judgment was passed in appeal against the judgment dated April 18, 1994 of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition of the first respondents. This was however the second round of litigation between the parties.
(3.) The first respondent who was the petitioner sought quashing of the earlier order dated December 21, 1981 passed by the Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Hooghly under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (for short the Act) requisitioning 0.63 acres of land of the petitioner bearing plot No. 1790, Mouza Manoharpur, J. L. No. 93 in the district of Hooghly. In terms of this order the possession of the land was taken over on January 7, 1982. As a matter of fact the order of requisition pertained to 21.41 acres of land of various plot numbers which included the plot of the petitioners. The report of the process server shows that the notice requisitioning the land was served by means of affixation with seal and the signatures of witnesses, by going to the places mentioned in the order requisitioning the land. The petitioner filed the writ petition in Calcutta High Court challenging the order of requisition dated December 21, 1981 on the ground that possession of the land was taken over without the service of the order on him which was the mandatory requirement of law. By judgment dated February 23, 1983, the learned Judge of the High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following order: "In this writ application one of the grievances of the writ petitioner is that though he is the owner of the plot in question, the respondents are trying to take possession of those lands in purported exercise of their powers under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 without serving him with a notice of requisition or acquisition. In controverting the above contention of the petitioner the respondents assert that the notice has duly been served upon the recorded owner and as the petitioner was not the recorded owner he was not served with any notice. It, however, appears that by a registered deal dated November 2, 1965 the petitioner purchased the plot in question from the recorded owner and as such the petitioner is entitled to a statutory notice under the Act, In such circumstances I direct the respondents to serve a copy of the notice of requisition upon the petitioner and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. Let status quo in respect of the plot in question be maintained till such service of notice. Let it be recorded that I have not decided any of the other points raised by the parties in support of their respective contentions. Let it also be recorded that such service of notice will not ipso facto give any right to the petitioner to claim any compensation if the land is subsequently acquired." Since the Court directed maintenance of status quo possession of the land remained with the State.;