- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Mr. Bhagabati Banerjee J. on 28th November, 86 in CO. No. 144491 (w)/85. Sri Jiban Krishna karmakar, the founder and head master of Vivekananda Missionary institution at No. 8/b, Dum Dum Road, Police Stateion - Cossipore, calcutta-700030 (for short the writ petitioner hereafter) filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble Court challenging the declaration being No. 11702la dated 2 4th September, 1081 and an award made by the First land Acquisition Collector on 10th September, 1985. The declaration impugned in the writ petition in contained in Annexure j to the writ petition, which reads thus : " THE CALCUTTA GAZETTE, EXTRAORDINARY, OCTOBER 1, 1981 calcutta - No. 11702la/is-679 dated 24th September, 1981 whereas the Governor in satisfied that land is needed for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of the new school building of the Kumar Ashutosh Institution (Main) Dum Dum, Calcutta, in ward no. 2 of the Calcutta Municipality in the City of Calcutta, it is hereby declared that a piece of land comprising premises no. 8b, Dum Dum road (portion) and measuring, more or less 1. 070 of a hectare (2. 645 of an acre) and bounded on the -. North : By private passage appertaining to premises no. 9, dum Dum Road. East : By 8a, 8c and 8d, Dum Dum Road. South : By private passage appertaining to premises no. 8a, dum Dum Road. West : By remaining portion at 8a and 8b, Dum Dum Road is needed for the aforesaid public purpose partly at the public expense and partly at the expenses of the kumar Ashutosh Institution (main) within the aforesaid ward No. 2 of the Calcutta Municipality in the City of Calcutta. This declaration is made under the provision of Section 6 of act I of 1894 to all whom it may concern. A plan of the land may be inspected in the office of the First land Acquisition Collector, Cal-5 Bankshall Street, Cal-1 ".
(2.) THE writ petitioner did not annex a copy of the award. The factual matrix as cast in the writ petition presents short history of the earlier writ petition being C. O. No. 7157 (w)/81 wherein the writ petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity the said Act hereafter)praying, inter alia, for quashing the said notification and for a mandate upon the respondents to forbear from giving any effect or further effect to the said notification. The Notification under section 4 of the said Act which was challenged in the C. O. No. 7157 (w)/81 is contained in Annexure A to the writ petition at page 24 of the Paper book. Grounds of challenge in the earlier writ petition were that being a tenant in respect of the land more of less 16 cottahs the writ petitioner ought to have been treated as one of the objectors and his objection, though filed out of time, should have been entertained, considered and disposed of by the concerned authorities on merits. In support of the contention as raised in the writ petition that the. concerned authority did not act properly, the writ petitioner annexed certain documents as contained in Annexure B, C, D, E, F and G to the writ petition. The said writ petition was disposed of by Mr. Justice basak on 8th June, 1981 by the following order : - " After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, I pass the following order. It is recorded that none of the learned Advocates object to the order being passed. The objection of the petitioner, though filed out of time, be accepted, considered and disposed of by the authorities concerned on merits and the final order be passed by 31st July, 1981 after giving the petitioner personal hearing and after the appropriate authorities making local inspection upon notice to the petitioner. The application is, thus, disposed of. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case
(3.) FROM a reference to the said order it appears that order was passed by this Court in the absence of the respondent no. 4. It is also very interesting to note that the Requiring Authority namely, Kumar ashutosh Institution (Main) (for short "the said Institution) Boys Service was not made one of the respondents in the writ petition and the said landlord Brojendra Nath Haider nor the said Institution had any occasion either to represent in the matter nor had any knowledge of the order passed by this Court on 8th June, 1981. After the passing of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid C. O. No. 7157 (w)/81 the writ petitioner did not inform the respondents the gist of the order nor did they send xerox copy of the certified copy of the order to the First Land Acquisition Collector although the writ petitioner was repeatedly asked to send the same. In the background of factual aspect of the matter as detailed above the writ petition was moved on 7th, October, 1985 against the declaration issued as far as back on 24th September, 1981 for quashing the same after lapse of 4 years from the date of issue of the declaration. The grievance of the writ petitioner was that inspite of an order passed by this Court on 8th june, 1981 the respondents failed and neglected to carry out the directions passed by this Court though they were fully aware of the order passed by this Court. As the order was passed in presence of the learned Counsel appearing for the State, it was also the case of the writ; petitioner that he was under the impression that the proceeding had been dropped since the respondents did not take any step to carry out the order passed by this Court. . After lapse of 26 months from the date of the passing of the order of this Court the writ petitioner sometimes in the month of August, 1983-sent a letter to the First land Acquisition Collector to the following effect : - " Kindly refer to the order passed by His Lordship the Hon'ble mr. Justice B. C. Basak on 8/6/81 in respect of the aforesaid land. The matter has been closed for ever. But now I understand that you have permitted Kumar Ashutosh Institution (Main) Boys Section to acquire the said land and they are trying to do so. Since it amounts to clear contempt of Court, I would request you not to allow the said Institution to disturb my possession of the said land in any way. In case I do not hear anything from you within two weeks from the receipt of this letter it will be deemed that you do not want to obey the order of the Hon'ble High Court and in the event, I will be forced apply for contempt of Court against you which please note". ;