BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. - (1.) This Mandamus-Appeal is at the instance of a writ-petitioner and is directed against order dated 15th September, 2006, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in the Writ Petition No. 1589 (W) of 2006, thereby vacating the interim order earlier granted by His Lordship.
(2.) The appellant before us filed the aforesaid writ-application thereby praying for quashing the demand of the respondent contained in a letter dated 28th April, 2006 for relinquishing possession of the acquired land, being Annexure P-12 to the writ-application and for restraining the respondents from erecting or installing any Toll-Plaza within the area of Matidhar Tea Estate belonging to the writ petitioner and from interfering with the possession of the writ-petitioner in the said tea-estate. The writ-petitioner further prayed for cancellation of the notifications dated 27th May, 2005 and 22nd November, 2005 issued under the National Highways Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) so far as the serial No. 5 thereof, relating to the tea-estate of the writ petitioner and for a direction upon the respondents not to take any step or further action on the basis of those notifications. The writ petitioner further prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with its possession in the property mentioned in those notifications.
(3.) The case made out by the appellant in the writ-application was that from the beginning of the year 2005, the officers of the National Highways Authority were surveying the area where the tea-estate of the appellant is situated and the appellant got a vague information that the tea-estate of the appellant might be acquired for the purpose of extension of the National Highway No. 31. The appellant has admitted in the writ-application that its officers made representations to the National Highways Authority for not acquiring the tea-estate concerned and even suggested some alternative accommodation but the respondent paid deaf ear to those representations and ultimately, by a letter dated 28th April, 2006 demanded possession of the land in question on the allegation that the notices in terms of the provisions contained in the Act have already been published and other necessary formalities have been complied with. According to the appellant, there was no notification in terms of Section 3-A of the Act and at the same time, the essential formalities prescribed in the said section for publication of such notification in two local newspapers including one in vernacular had not been complied with, as a result, the appellant has been deprived of the opportunity of raising objection against the proposed acquisition. It is further alleged that even the officers of the State Government requested the National Highways Authority to revoke the acquisition-notice as would appear from the document annexed to the writ-application and as such, at this stage, the appellant contended, there was no question of handing over possession of the land in question in favour of the National Highways Authority.;