Joytosh Banerjee, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against on order dated 30th July, 1996 passed by a Single Judge of this Court on the writ petition being W.P. No. 26/95, G.A. No. 2029/95 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.
(2.) The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the present appeal are more or less admitted. The appellant filed a writ application in January 1995 challenging the notification dated 22nd October, 1994 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by which the respondent-State of West Bengal sought to acquire a portion of premises No. 3, Baikunta Sen Lane, Calcutta, which belonged to the petitioner. The premises in question had been subject of requisition under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947 since 10th July, 1965, for housing a rationing office. It was requisitioned by an order dated 27th March, 1992. But, the vacant possession was not handed over to the appellant. For the same, the appellant filed a writ application claiming vacant possession of the premises and such writ application was disposed of on 20th January, 1993 directing the authorities to vacate the premises within a specified period. That period, was, subsequently, extended by the Court on the basis of the submissions by the authorities and this Court in connection with the writ application passed the last order dated 3rd of March, 1994 extending the period for 4 months for the purpose of completing the procedure to acquire the property by the respondent/State and the same was done without prejudice to the petitioners right to challenge the acquisition. The notification acquiring the property as noted above was issued within the extended period.
(3.) In the writ application, the appellant/petitioner contended that the ground floor of the premises in question covered an area of 3 cottahs but through the notification, the respondents sought to acquire only 2 cottahs 3 chataks and 13.5 sq. feets of such ground floor. Yet in the impugned notification, the premises in question was described with reference to the outer boundary of the entire premises. It was therefore, contended in the writ petition that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was vague and could not be sustained.;