Palok Basu, J. - (1.) Before proceeding with the matter on merits, it may be observed at the outset that the petitioner who is engaged in one of the most important defence activity of the nation has been compulsively forced to enter into the instant litigation through these six writ petitions emanating through wholly illegal, unsound and awesome proceedings initiated admittedly after seven years of the award under the Land Acquisition Act became final. The Court desires that in such matters, the District Magistrate himself should examine the legal provisions and then only make up his mind as to whether or not reopening by whatever method of land acquisition proceedings is needed.
(2.) In factual basis, the Court has made the Writ Petition No. 28954 of 2000 as a leading one and the other five writ petitions shall be governed by this judgment and wherever necessary, the dates and names will aptly stand automatically substituted. The controversy is one and the same. The points argued are also similar, therefore, some of the dates which are different should not unnecessarily be brought in because the conclusion in each of petitions also is to be the same.
(3.) Still further, it should be pointed out that the S.L.A.Os. working under the Land Acquisition Act are to carry out the provisions contained in that Act while determining compensation or taking any other steps in land acquisition proceedings. By and large, outside authorities may not be permitted to guide the activities of the S.L.A.Os. in matters which have already become final long ago, by making conceited order here and there.;