Dilip Kumar Seth, J. - (1.) An award in a Land Acquisition proceeding was challenged under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The award was published on 10th February, 1995. The reference being L.R.A. Case No. 810 of 1996(V) was disposed of by the learned Addl. Spl. L.A. Judge, 4th Court, Alipore, on 26th March, 2001. The decree was drawn up on 3rd of April, 2001. The petitioners have come up with this application seeking a direction upon the collector to pay the amount in terms of the decree. It is alleged that one of the petitioners is suffering and needs immediate medical attention which, according to the petitioners learned Counsel, is a serious affairs of which relevant documents have been annexed to show that he requires immediate medical attention for which some amount is necessary which the petitioners needs immediately. Therefore, according to him, despite the decree being executable under Section 26 sub-section (2), yet the petitioner could not wait for the execution in the exigency of the circumstances. Therefore, this Court should pass appropriate order in order to help out the petitioner, otherwise, by the time the decree is executed, the needy petitioner will remain without any medical attention.
(2.) Mr. Dasgupta, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that a decree passed by the L.A. Judge is executable under Section 26(2) of the said Act. The petitioner is also entitled to ask for an interim order in execution. He further Contends that the original award has since been paid to the petitioner. The writ Court cannot be allowed to be resorted to for the purpose of seeking execution of a decree passed by the learned Special L.A. Judge. There being adequate alternative remedy, this writ Court should not exercise its jurisdiction to take upon itself the responsibility of executing the decree. According to him, a decree under Section 26 has the same force as a decree under the Civil Procedure Code and is so executable. Therefore, this petition should be dismissed. According to him, the petitioner has come within four months from the date of the decree or for seeking any interim relief in the execution. Therefore, the petitioner, does not appear to be diligent. No relief could, therefore, be granted in this petition.
(3.) After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that a decree or a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the L.A. Judge is a decree within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code and as such, executable in view of Section 26(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the writ Court should not take upon itself the responsibility of executing such a decree, when there are adequate remedy open to the petitioners. The petitioner appears to have come closely on the hilt of a decree which was passed on 26th March, 2001 without attempting to levy the execution or even praying for any interim relief in execution. It is true that the should have made an attempt before coming to this Court and in case there was a reason to believe that he would not get speedy or immediate relief, he could not approach this Court but the fact remains that the petitioners have disclosed that one of the petitioners requires immediate medical attention. Though the writ Court should not entertain such writ petition, but it occasion so demands, the writ Court cannot be a silent on looker and may also pass appropriate order. This jurisdiction cannot be taken away even by reason of existence of alternative remedy which is not an absolute bar.;