Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) The second mentioned matter is a contempt proceeding arising in connection with and out of the orders passed in the aforesaid writ application. It is alleged in the contempt application that the alleged contemnors/respondents have deliberately and wilfully violated the interim order of injunction restraining respondents from interfering with possession of the writ petitioners. This contempt application will be discussed and dealt with after consideration and disposal of the writ petition on merit.
(2.) The original writ petition cannot be traced, so, a copy of the writ petition was collected from the parties and the same is re-constructed as being original. From the prayer portion, averment and statement of the writ petition it appears to me, factually, that the writ petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 and proforma respondents who were previously arrayed as writ petitioners Nos. 8 to 11 challenged the order of requisition followed by acquisition under Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act II). The writ petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 are the purchasers of portion of land bearing Dag No. 32 having an area of 1.19 Acres appertaining to the Khatian No. 3 of Mouza Ramchandrapur, P.S. Thakurpukur, District South 24 Paraganas (hereinafter referred to as the said land). They purchased the land in 1993 from the successor in interest of the original owner namely Sm. Tarit Lata Bhowmick who died intestate on 29th May, 1967. The original writ petitioner Nos. 8-11 who have been transposed to the category of the respondent by order dated 18 April, 2004, are descendant, successor in interest, of said Tarit Lata Bhoumik since deceased. Therefore, the writ petitioners together with the transposed respondents challenged requisition and acquisition. The factual purchase of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 is not denied and disputed. In the writ petition it was alleged that the respondent, State authorities, did not issue any valid order of requisition nor took possession of the property in question at any point of time. The State authorities without due process of law had wrongfully and forcibly attempted to take possession by breaking a portion of the boundary wall erected by the writ petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 and thereby disturbed and interfered with their possession in respect of the said land. Under those circumstances the prayers were made for restoration of the boundary wall and for an order restraining the respondents and their men and agents and servants and/or assignees from disturbing in and/or interfering with the peaceful and lawful possession of the petitioners with regard to the aforesaid plot of land in any manner whatsoever.
(3.) The instant writ petition was filed and moved on 1st July, 1994 before His Lordship The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Battabayal (as His Lordship then was). On the same day His Lordship was pleased to give direction for filing affidavits to hear out the matter on merit and the respondents were directed not to interfere with the possession of the writ petitioners in respect of the plots in question as on that date till further order.;