- (1.) These two appeals are preferred against a common order passed by the learned Single Judge on July 08, 2013 in W.P.C.R.C. 249 (W) of 2013. It is necessary to mention the background under which the present appeals are filed in order to appreciate the stand of the parties before us. The appellants in MAT 1094 of 2013 are the beneficiaries of certain land by virtue of land acquisition proceedings and according to them, they are in possession of the land that was acquired for the purpose of playground and hostel building of the School run by them. According to them, after completion of the land acquisition proceedings they had deposited the compensation amount and even an award was passed to the said effect. Apparently they seem to be beneficiaries as predecessors in title of the writ petitioner did challenge the acquisition proceedings and the same went against them in the litigation. This is so far as the acquisition proceedings. Subsequent to the acquisition proceedings, by virtue of section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1955), the beneficiaries of the land had applied for change of mutation in their favour and the same came to be disposed of by BL & LRO by another proceeding after due notice to the writ petitioners, who took part in the proceedings.
(2.) It is not in dispute that on February 13, 2013, the BL & LRO agreed with the contentions raised by the beneficiaries of the land and directed the changes in the revenue records so far as the names of the parties. Therefore the name of the School Authorities came to be incorporated as the owners of the land in the place of erstwhile owners from whom the land was acquired.
(3.) Challenging the issuance of the notice under section 50 of the said Act of 1955 issued by the Authority concerned on the application filed by the School Authorities, it is pertinent to mention that subsequent to February 13, 2013 order, which went against the writ petitioners, who not only filed appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order dated February 13, 2013 but also filed writ petition not disclosing the orders passed in favour of the beneficiaries i.e. order dated February 13, 2013 before the learned Single Judge; in other words the Statutory Appellate Authority constituted for effecting mutation changes in terms of section 50 of the said Act of 1955 did give opportunity to the writ petitioners and the genuineness or otherwise of the notice under section 50 of the said Act of 1955 could also be challenged before the Statutory Appellate Authority i.e. District Collector and thereafter the matter has to come before the Tribunal constituted under the Act concerned. However, it is left to the discretion of the parties how they would proceed with the litigation.;