Dilip Kumar Seth, J. - (1.) :- In Re.: CAN 3260-61 of 2004; CAN 1788-89 of 2004; CAN 3567-72 of 2004; CAN 4052 of 2004; CAN 3971 of 2004. A requisition was made sometimes in 1976 under the .West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act-II of 1948). Notices under Section 4(l a) were issued on 30th December 1993. Act-II of 1948 had lapsed before the acquisition proceedings could be completed. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was amended and Sections 9(3A) and 9(3B) were inserted to validate the proceedings for acquisition of lands requisitioned under Act-II of 1948. In this case, notices under Section 9(3B) were issued on 30th of July 1998. By reason of such amendment, any proceeding for acquisition of lands requisitioned under Act-II of 1948 was brought within the purview of the 1894 Act. Section 11 of the 1894 Act requires determination of the compensation and making of the award. But this could be done with the previous approval of the appropriate Government or officer authorised by the appropriate Government. On this ground, the writ petition was moved. In the writ petition the State Government in its affidavit-in-opposition disclosed that the award was passed without prior approval of the appropriate Government as provided in the first proviso to sub- section (1) Section 11 of the 1894 Act. However, post facto approval was sought for. The learned Counsel for the State, however, submits that such approval has since been given. But the learned Single Judge had found that the award having been made without the prior approval of the appropriate Government the same could not be processed and as such the award was set aside with a direction to declare the award in accordance with law afresh.
(2.) It is against this order, two appeals have since been filed. One of the appeals was filed by the State Government and the other by the Requiring Authority. In these appeals, several applications for addition of part:- s have been made by various persons claiming to be the claimant under the award, in order to seek relief in the form of permission to withdraw the amount awarded in favour of such claimants without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The respective learned Counsel for the respective applicants submit before us and, in their usual fairness, admitted that their clients did not challenge the validity of the award on the ground of absence of prior approval of the appropriate Government in accordance with the first proviso to Section 11(1) of the 1894 Act. It is also pointed out that except Mr. Pan's clients (the writ petitioners), no one has challenged the award on this ground until date.
(3.) Be that as it may, none of the present applicants before us has challenged the award and having accepted the same, those parts of the award to which the applicants are interested could not be set aside in a proceeding where only some of the claimants (writ petitioners) being aggrieved have challenged the same and in which the other claimants including the applicants were not parties.;