Basudeva Panigrahi, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order for acquisition of the petitioner's lands as mentioned in Schedule 'A' to this petition issued by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) The writ petitioners are the owner of the land described in Schedule 'A' attached to the writ petition who have been residing in the houses situated on the land. They purchased the lands from different owners and after the purchase they had duly applied for a mutation of their respective names in the rent roll kept and maintained by the opposite party/State and accordingly their names have been mutated. After mutation, they have been paving rent as evidence of their occupation. The copy of the said mutation certificate and the rent receipt are annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 'B'.
(3.) It is, inter alia, stated that some of the writ petitioners had received the notices issued by the L.A. Collector, South 24 Parganas informing them that the opposite party-State would take possession under the Act II of the Estate Acquisition Act, 1948. It is the further case of the petitioners that on 26.3.83 the respondents through their agents had threatened the petitioners that they would take possession of the lands covered under the writ. Therefore, they had filed the instant writ application for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the opposite party that they cannot/should not take possession of the property mentioned in Schedule 'A' as the requisition/acquisition is invalid, unlawful and whimsical. It is, further, stated that the petitioners had not received notices of acquisition and/or requisition of the said land and structure and, therefore, it was beyond their knowledge that the opposite parties were intending to acquire such property. Since the purpose of acquisition of land is vague, indefinite, mala fide and motivated, the land could not have been acquired by the State. The respondents and its officer should not have resorted to the provisions of Act II of 1948 since the provisions of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act are no longer necessary and applicable. It is further stated that since the provisions of original Act II of 1948 were no longer in force, those could not have been revalidated by subsequent Amendment. Therefore, the action of the State Government for requisition/acquisition of the land is motivated unlawful and invalid.;