SAMARENDRA NATH PAUL AND OTHERS Vs. COLLECTOR, HOONGLY AND ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Samarendra Nath Paul And Others
Collector, Hoongly And Addl. District Magistrate And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
Satyabrata Sinha, J. -
(1.)This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 13.7 88 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby said whereunder the said learned Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants questioning an order of requisition in respect of plot Nos. 1787 and 1788 in Mouza Monoharpur, in terms of a notice dated 9.3.84.
(2.)The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.
(3.)The aforementioned plots were purchased by the writ petitioners in terms of a registered deed of conveyance dated 7th July, 1981 from Sri Haradhan Ballav and Others and their names were mutated and recorded in the relevant records. According to the appellants, they purchased the said plots for the purpose of erecting and/or constructing a factory. By reason of an order dated 21.12.81, the Collector, Hooghly, in purported exercise of his jurisdiction under Sec. 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) requisitioned the said property allegedly for implementation o a housing project at Menoharpur by the West Bengal Housing Board. No order was served upon the appellants although the delivery of possession thereof was sought to be taken on 7tb Jan., 1982. A representation was made by the appellants on 3.2.82 However, as no relief was granted to them, they moved a writ application before this Court which was marked as C.R. No 5572 (W) of 1982 on or about 26th April, 1982. In the said proceedings. affidavits-in-opposition were filed by the concerned respondents stating that the lands were requisitioned for the purpose of Daukuni Housing Project. By reason of an order dated 30.1.84, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition directing that the Impuened notices were not to be given effect to, but the respondent No. 5 and the State respondent would be at liberty to proceed in the matter afresh upon serving fresh notice on the proper persons. The appellants have contended that although they has been in actual physical possession of the land in question, delivery of possession of the said plots was taken by the respondents on or about 14.5.84. A purported notice dated 9.5.84 bearing memo No. 1995(3) I.A. issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Hooghly. was served for the first time upon the writ petitioner No. 2, who is said to be the registered owner of a portion of the plot of laud on 27.5.84, but copies of the said notice had not been served on the appellant Nos. 3 and 4. The instant writ petition was, therefore, filed on 4th June, 1984. in the said proceedings also, a affidavits-in-opposition were filed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.