- (1.) The instant appeal impugns the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge Dated 10th February, 2005 whereby and where under the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 15,000.00.
(2.) The petitioner affected by the order of requisition followed by acquisition of his small plot of land under the provisions of Land Acquisition and Requisition Act 1948, Act II of 1948 (hereinafter referred to 1948 Act) brought the action as above. The short fact of the case for which above writ petition came to be filed is stated hereunder. The petitioner/appellant purchased for his residential purpose the said land in question bearing plot No. 2646 under R.S. Khatian No. 1611 within Mouza - Kasba, JL No. 13 in the District of 24-Parganas (South) from one Arun Kumar Chatterjee and Nil Ratan Chatterjee on 16th of November 1976. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner got his name mutated in the records of right both in Revenue Department and in the records of Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The petitioner, thereafter, paid due Municipal rates and tax in the Revenue Department. To substantiate factum of mutation and payment of rates and taxes he. has annexed 11 documents with the writ petitions. The petitioner had not been residing in Calcutta as he had been working in the Merchant Navy in 1971 as such he was posted outside India till 1983. Immediately before filing of the writ petition, the petitioner came to India to see his relation and to see the said land. At that time he came to know from rumours of the locality that the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority made some small plots comprising land of the petitioner on removing structure. He, thereafter, made enquiry and came to learn further that the said plot was acquired by the State Government for the need C.M.D.A. (now K.M.D.A). At the office of the K.M.D.A., the petitioner was shown a copy of the notification issued on 29th November 1983 under No. 8290 L.A. II dated 21st November 1983 under Act II of 1948 whereby aforesaid land of the petitioner has been acquired. The petitioner till the date of filing of the writ petition did not receive any copy of the order of requisition or acquisition as required to serve under sections 3 and 4 of Act 1948. Petitioner was completely in dark and no notice was served upon him either for requisition or acquisition. The said requisition was made without any public purpose within the meaning of the said Act. The 1948 Act at present no longer exists. It was enacted for temporary purpose for acquisition and requisition of the land and the effect thereof expired on 31st March, 1976. However, there has been re-enactment Act of 1977 for the same purpose and new Act came into force on 1st April, 1977. This reenactment Act of 1977 does not revalidate the deed and act done under Act of 1948 as the said provisions of the said Act are no longer in existence on the expiry of 31st March, 1977. The entire acquisition and requisition is bad in law even no notice was given for passing award and no compensation was paid earlier.
(3.) The said writ petition was opposed by State of West Bengal and K.M.D.A. THE point of opposition in sum and substance is that the vast area was sought to be required for the purpose of development works to be undertaken by the K.M.D.A. and as such the Government was moved for acquisition of the land. THEreafter, the Government under the provision of Act 1948 the vast area including the plot of the petitioner was initially requisitioned lawfully and then on service of due and valid notice acquisition was made. This was completed long time back in 1983. THE award was passed and even compensation money was paid and 80 per cent of the amount of compensation was received by the learned Advocate engaged by the writ petitioner. Obviously there has been inordinate delay to challenge the said requisition and acquisition and also the question of estoppel, acquiescence are staring against the petitioners. In the instant case, the address of the petitioner could not be found and furthermore at the said plot of land there had been no structure but at a conspicuous place notice was affixed and even by substituted service in the Official Gazette the said notice was issued. In spite of the same no objection was filed. It appears from the impugned judgment and order that learned Trial Judge had proceeded on the question of service of notice and also on payment of compensation. The learned Trial Judge while rendering decision considered the relevant record produced before His Lordship. It was found by His Lordship that statement made as regard payment of compensation to the petitioner is not correct and subsequently, by filing supplementary affidavit the said incorrect statement was corrected.;