- (1.) This writ petition was filed on 22nd July, 2010. It came up for final hearing on 27th January, 2016. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate had appeared on behalf of the petitioners and made his submissions. On behalf of the State Mr. Lahiri, learned advocate had sought for and obtained leave to file a supplementary affidavit. The submissions made on that date as appearing in order dated 27th January, 2016 are reproduced below : - "Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits the land of his clients was sought to be initially required under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder and thereafter acquired. His clients have challenged the requisition and consequently the acquisition on the ground no notice under Section 3(2) of the said Act was served on the owners of the land in question. Specific averments to that effect were made in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the writ petition. In response in the affidavit -in -opposition filed on behalf of the State, the dates of taking possession of the several plots and issuance of general notice for the entire mouza have been alleged. Mr. Chakraborty relied on two judgments - one delivered by a Division Bench of this Court and the other by the Supreme Court.
(2.) In Sailendra Nath Pal and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2010(2) CHN (Cal) 315 a Division Bench of this Court had struck down the order made under sub -section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act on the omission of issuance and service of notice under Section 3(2) in the prescribed manner. Mr. Chakraborty then relied on the decision in the case of Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in [2012(109) AIC 200(S.C)] in which the Supreme Court in paragraph 16 thereof held that the High Court was in error in summarily dismissing the writ petition on the claim of acquisition made and possession had there being no evidence produced by the respondents to show that actual possession of the land had been taken after giving notice at a time when at least an independent witness was present.
(3.) The notice of case requiring the respondents to produce evidence regarding them having taken possession, as alleged by the State in its affidavit, had not been given in the petition. In the circumstances, the State is given leave to file a supplementary affidavit, a copy of which must be made over to the learned advocate for the petitioners by 12th February, 2016. The supplementary affidavit must disclose evidence regarding possession taken by the State. Since it has been submitted a copy of the affidavit -in -opposition was served on the petitioners two days back, the petitioners will be entitled to use a reply both to WP 15618 (W) of 2010 the affidavit -in -opposition as well as supplementary affidavit, also to be filed on the adjourned date, advance copy thereof served.";