Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner is a partnership firm represented by a partner. It has not been stated whether it is a registered partnership firm. Hearing was adjourned on January 2nd, 2007 to enable advocate to produce document to show that the firm is a registered one. He now says that he is not in a position to produce any certificate of registration. He, however, produces a partnership deed dated March 31st, 1993 executed before a notary public on April 7th, 1993. Be that as it may, I am of the view that the person (Gholam Sabir) who signed and presented the writ petition should be permitted to proceed with the case. It is put on record that counsel has conceded that an unregistered partnership firm is not a legal entity.
(2.) In the writ petition certain land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Collector, South 24-Parganas have been questioned. The petitioner has prayed for an order quashing the proceedings. It has been claimed that the firm was a tenant with respect to certain godown and land located at plot No. 601 of Mouza-Jaktala, P.O-Maheshtala of the district South-24 Parganas. The further claim is that it had been carrying on business also from plot No. 598 of the same Mouza. The contention of the petitioner is that the acquisition proceedings were initiated mala fide. Counsel argues that the authority proceeded in violation of Sections 4, 5, 5A and 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He says that no notice under Section 4 was given to the petitioner before the authorities decided to enter into the property. He argues that in the inquiry made under Section 5 the petitioner was not involved. His further argument is that when as owner the petitioner was entitled to get notice and compensation, the collector failed and neglected to give notice and pay compensation. He prays for an order directing the collector to give notice and pay compensation to the petitioner. Counsel for the State submits that the firm, claiming to be a tenant, has no right to question the acquisition proceedings, when the landlord decided not to raise any question regarding validity of the proceedings. To this, counsel for the petitioner says that as interested person his client was entitled to get notice. In support of his contention he relies on the division bench decision of this Court in Jadabendra Nath Jana & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2002(2) CLJ 242. He says that though the authorities were under the obligation to negotiate the matter with the petitioner, no step for that purpose was taken.
(3.) The writ petition was taken out on September 1st, 2005. The Section 4 notification was published in the official gazette on October 17th, 2003. It was duly published in the newspapers. It is nobody's case that after publication of the notification the authorities entered into any part of the premises without a prior notice to the occupiers thereof. Hence I do not see how the authorities acted in violation of provisions in Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. I find absolutely no merit in the contention that provisions of Section 5 were not complied with.;