SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for amendment filed in connection with W.P.15591(W) of 2003. The writ petition was affirmed on 26th of September, 2003. In the writ petition the petitioner made the following prayers : A. A Writ of and/or in the nature of - Mandamus, commanding the Respondents, their men, agents and subordinates why an appropriate direction should not be given upon the State Government in case the said land was not properly acquired in accordance with law within a reasonable time, the land of the petitioners should not be declared free from acquisition and the petitioners may start the construction of the building for their dwelling purpose. B. A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the Respondents, their men, agents and subordinates why the impugned notice and/or notification issued by the State Authorities for acquisition of the petitioners without taking recourse to the provisions of law in respect of the petitioners' lands should not be quashed, cancelled and set aside. C. A Writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari, calling upon the Respondents, their men, agents and subordinates to transmit and certify the records of the proceedings to this Hon'ble Court so that the conscionable justice may be done by quashing the impugned notice and/or alleged notification for acquisition of the petitioners' lands; D. Rule Nisi in terms of the prayers A to C as above; E. Costs of the petition and incidental to this petition; F. Any other appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions; G. An ad interim order of injunction restraining the Respondents, their men, agents and subordinates and each one of them from disturbing in any manner with the peaceful possession of the petitioners in respect of the lands as mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 28 to this petition, and further restraining the respondents, their men, agents and subordinates and associates from taking the said lands by the State authority without taking recourse to the provisions of law, till the disposal of the Rule.
(2.) OUT of the above -mentioned prayers by virtue of prayer B the writ petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, their men, agents and subordinates as to why impugned notice and/or notification issued by the State authorities for acquisition of the writ petitioner's land without taking recourse to the provisions of law should not be quashed, cancelled and/or set aside. Number of petitioners have joined together and challenged the acquisition proceeding in respect of various lands description of which has been mentioned in the writ petition. In the writ proceeding affidavits have been filed by the respondents way back in 2003. From the record it appears that an affidavit -inopposition was affirmed on 17th November, 2003 by Kajal De Biswas, Additional Land Acquisition Officer, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. By the said affidavit -in -opposition the said respondents dealt with the entire case of the petitioner and the acquisition in respect of the lands. Annexures to the said affidavit disclose notifications in connection with the acquisition proceeding. One of the notifications being annexed as Annexure R -1 dated 11th July, 2002 shows that the said notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act (I) of 1894 (Land Acquisition Act, 1894) and it also mentions that the said notification has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -Section (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Governor was pleased to direct that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act shall not apply to the lands as described in the Schedule to the said notification to which in the opinion of the Governor, the provisions of sub -Section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act would be applicable. Under Section 17 special power is being exercised by the Government in case of urgency. The petitioners have filed their reply to the said affidavit -in -opposition and in their reply they have dealt with the averments made in the said affidavit -inopposition.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition some of the petitioners expired and substitution has been duly made. In the pending writ petition in which affidavits and counter -affidavits were filed in 2003 and/or 2004 the writ petitioner sought permission of the Court on 19th December, 2011 for filing a supplementary affidavit but the same was opposed by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.8 and 9 and as a result, the said supplementary affidavit could not be filed. On 19th December, 2011 this Court passed the following order : - "Mr. Sahoo, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Sudhakar Biswas, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, wanted to file two supplementary affidavits, which was opposed by Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Debu Banerjee, learned Counsel, appearing for the HIDCO and he submits that the supplementary affidavit is sought to be filed for bringing some new documents and adding some new grounds, which are not permissible. However, Mr. Sahoo submits that his client is willing to file an application for amendment of the writ petition. The parties are at liberty to take steps." By the said order this Court held that regarding application for amendment the parties would be at liberty to take steps. After the aforesaid order dated 19th December, 2011, in the year 2012 the writ petitioner filed an application for amendment being C.A.N.8561 of 2012. On the death of original writ petitioner No.1, Sachindra Nath Mondal Gita Rani Mondal, Sujit Mondal, Suman Mondal, Smt. Sushmita Chakravarty and Smt. Sumi Mondal (Karmakar) have been substituted as the heirs and legal representatives of the original petitioner No.1.;