- (1.) THE writ petitioners, stated to be the owners of the plots of land in question, have challenged the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") on the following grounds :- "I. For that in respect of the notification the petitioners raised their respective objection within the schedule time as prescribed in the statute itself but the concerned failed to appreciate that if the construction of bridge over the Ramnagar canal is being done the petitioners will be suffering ; //. For that due procedure has not been followed in the matter of acquisiting land and thereby due to procedural defects as laid down in the Act itself, the land cannot be acquisitioned by the State Government for the public purpose; III. For that on the basis of the proposal given by the petitioners the Government did not give any response, rather all the objections from the land owners being the petitioners herein and also the alternative proposal are pending before the concerned authority and in spite of pending that objection the land has been declared in the Calcutta Gazette for the purpose of acquisition; IV. For that the State Government has failed to appreciate that an alternative proposal has been submitted by the petitioners and such proposal has to be taken into consideration before the acquisition of the land of the petitioners, but without doing so the Government proceeded for acquisitioned of the land without due process of law; V. For that the purported action on the part of the concerned respondent authority is otherwise bad in law." The relevant prayers in the writ petition are as under:- a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to hear out the objection of the petitioners before taking any step for acquisition of the land of the petitioners; b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to accept the proposal as submitted by the petitioners for the purpose of construction of the bridge over Ramnagar canal in the northern side of the present bridge; c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to take over the possession of the land of the petitioners as per the declaration as made under section 6 of the said Act; d) A writ in the nature of Certiorari, directing the respondents to transmit the records of the case before this Hon'ble Court within a time fixed so that conscionable justice may be done..........."
(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that on 29th May, 2009 the State had in daily newspaper issued a notification under section 4 of the Act for acquisition of the plot of land in question to construct a bridge at Ramnagar over Ramnagar Khal on Contai-Digha Road, at Ramnagar, Purba Medinipur, for public purpose and it was further notified that any person having interest in the said land and who had any objection to the said acquisition, may within thirty days file their objections in writing before the Collector. The petitioners objected in writing and gave alternative proposal. However, as there was no response, an application dated 10th March, 2010 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('2005 Act' for short) was filed before the appropriate authority. By memo dated 12th April, 2010 the authority under the 2005 Act replied that all objections from land owners had been forwarded to the Land and Land Reforms Department and thereafter Declaration under section 6 of the Act was published. Thereafter, it appears, on 16 June, 2010 notifications under Section 12(2) of the Act were issued. Allegation is, thereafter the petitioners were coerced by the State to accept cheques and tokens for which on 22nd June, 2010 they lodged complaint before the Officer In- charge, Ramnagar Police Station. Mr. Bihani, learned senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that as the procedure laid down in the Act, particularly in Section 5A(2), has not been followed by the State by making a report in respect of the land notified under Section 4(1) of the Act and as no recommendation was made on the objections, and as there was no decision of the government, as evident from the order dated 15th July, 2009, being annexure R1 to the application, which is also borne out from the memo dated 12th April, 2010 in reply to the application under the 2005 Act, which affects the valuable rights of the petitioners, the action of the State is highhanded and illegal. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in i) Hindusthan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, (2005)7 SCC 627 ; ii) Raghbir Singh Sehrawatv. State of Haryana, (2012)1 SCC 792 and iii) Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. v. State of W.B., (2012)2 SCC 25 : (2012)2 WBLR (SC) 65 in support of his submission.
(3.) MR . Banerjee, learned Government Pleader, opposing the writ petition submitted that the contention on behalf of the petitioners that the provisions contained in Section 5A of the Act were not followed is incorrect as it is not disputed that written objections were considered, hearing was granted to the objectors and as evident from the order dated 15th July, 2009 opinion was formed, recommendation was made and report was filed. According to him as there is no prescribed method in Section 5A, and as composite order dated 15th July, 2009 has taken care of the statutory requirements contained in the said section, action taken is valid and in accordance with law. Moreover, as the petitioners did not challenge the proceedings promptly either after order dated 15th July, 2009 was passed by the Collector or after Declaration was published on 16th February, 2010, and had subsequently participated in the proceedings under Section 12(2) of the Act recording their attendance, and thus acquiesced, and thereafter had filed the writ petition without challenging order dated 15th July, 2009 and the Declaration, the writ petition may be dismissed on the ground of delay.;