- (1.) THE petitioners viz. , 12 and 16 I, C. Bose Road Tenants' association (hereinafter referred to as the said Association), have impeached in the Rule, a declaration in Annexure "d" dated December 29, 1975, made under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and although not specifically mentioned in the prayers, the subsequent change of the alternative alignment and consequent acquisition of premises No. 12, I. C. Bose Road (hereinafter referred to as the said premises), on the allegations that the interest of the members of the said Association, who are occupiers and tenants of the same, have been adversely affected.
(2.) ON or about December 2, 1974, a notification was made under section 4 of the said Act to the effect that the lands as described therein, in the District of Howrah, were likely to be needed for a public purpose viz. , for the construction of Northern approach road in connection with the reconstruction of Buckland Bridge at new site from Hari Mohan Basu Road, in Howrah Municipal Ward No. 4 to Chand Mari Road at the crossing of Moulana Abul Kalam Azad Lane and Chand Mari Road in the said Municipal Ward No. 4, Mouza Golabari, District Howrah. In the said notification, it was further mentioned that a piece of land comprising cadastral survey pilots as described in the connected Schedule, and measuring more or less, 0,56230 hectere (1. 3895 acres), was likely to be needed for the said public purpose at the expenses of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the C. M. D. A.) within the said Ward No. 4 of the Municipality. There is also no dispute that the said premises became involved under the said notification and the tenants, who were occupying their respective portions and were carrying on their diverse business and were earning their livelihood, filed objections under section 5a of the said Act, before the Land Acquisition Officer, (Howrah Improvement Trust), Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the said Respondent), on the ground that the said acquisition for the proposed approach Road, was not a must, the same could be avoided and they further prayed that in case such acquisition is given effect to, then alternative accommodations should be provided for by the Government, so that they may mot lose their business, thereby their livelihood and may not also be stranded with the members of their family.
(3.) IT has been alleged that from the copy of a notice (Annexure C) which is dated March 18, 1975 and whereby April 4, 1975 was fixed for hearing of the objections under section 5a of the said Act, it was learnt for the first time by the members of the said Association that only South Western portion of the said premises would fall within the proposed acquisition, as there was a change of the alignment. It has been alleged further that immediately on such detection, the matter was brought to the notice of the said Respondent, apart from making the submissions as referred to hereinbefore. But they were of no avail. The said Association has stated that it was or is not known either to them or their members, as to at whose instance of for the protection of whose interest, such change of alignment was required, needed and made. It has also been submitted that the acquisition under the original alignment was less onerous and expensive and furthermore the same; was much more easier from all points of view including acquisition, engineering and construction.;