PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE,J. - (1.) In terms of my earlier order dated June 29, 2018 the State of West Bengal has submitted instructions in the form of a status report. It is mentioned therein as follows: "After scrutiny of the Over Lapping Register, it appears that the writ plot i.e. C.S. Plot No. 164 of mouza-Amjhara, J. L. No.-73, P.S.-Canning is partly affected for construction of Kanthal Beria-Fakirtakira, Kalinagar-Sandeshkhali Road Project. Notice under section 4(1a) also published vide NO. 11730LA (P.W.) dated 30.07.64 in the Calcutta Gazette on 27.08.1964. From the writ it is revealed that the predecessor of the petitioners i.e., Gola Chanara Bibi was purchased the land vide Deed no. 2547,2551,2557 dt. 18.03.1977 when the land already vested to the state vide above stated notification since 30.07.1964. Hence the claim of the writ petitioners cannot be sustained as those deeds were illegal. Moreover he cannot produce any document about their ownership over the C.S. Plot no. - 164 of the said mouza."
(2.) Copy of the instruction is kept on record. Learned advocate of the State is requested to hand up a copy of the status report to Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. 3. A copy of the notification dated July 30, 1964 is also annexed to that report. This is the same as that which has been disclosed in the writ petition. 4. The State of West Bengal has made out a case that the predecessor in interest of the donors of the power of attorney which is executed in favour of the petitioner is the post-vesting purchaser in respect of a certain part of the lands in question. However, the fact that the petitioner's principals as aforesaid were in possession of the said lands according to the record of rights is disputed. How they were in possession of such lands or at least part thereof after the process of vesting has been explained by the State of West Bengal. 5. Be that as it may the present writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the holder of power of attorney on behalf of the disclosed principals whose names have been mentioned in paragraph '2' of the writ petition. It is well settled that an attorney under a power of attorney can institute proceeding on behalf of his principals but the petition must be filed by and in the name of the principals showing that it is filed through such attorney. 6. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as not being maintainable at the instance of the present writ petitioner as described in the writ petition. 7. However, this shall not prevent the donors of the power of attorney aforesaid for whom the petitioner had instituted the petition from filing afresh on the self-same cause of action or with such further cause of action as may be advised. 8. There shall be no order as to costs.;