Biswanath Somadder, J. - (1.) Affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record.
(2.) The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 17th November, 2017, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 5666 (W) of 2009 (Smt. Archana Seal and Ors. v. The Land Acquisition Collector and Ors.) . By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to dispose of the writ petition with the following observations:- "Be that as it may, the writ petitioner says that the writ petitioner has not participated either in appeal or proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and relies upon Rule 9(4) of Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952, wherein it is stipulated that the competent authority shall deposit in court the amount of compensation determined under section 8 if a person competent to alienate the property is not there. In my view, the same also includes a co-sharer recognised by the State authorities in the said property. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the writ petitioner has not received his share in terms of the aforesaid sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the 1952 Act (supra). In my view, the claim of the original writ petitioner lies in execution of the award in question. It is made clear that all questions as to payment and/or non-payment and/or deposit of share of compensation payable to late Pinaki Lal Seal are kept open in a particular proceeding that the legal heirs of said deceased may take out in accordance with law. It is also made clear that I have not in any way gone into the merits of rival claims and/or counter-claims and all questions shall be deemed to be open for either of the parties to be taken in any proceeding that the legal heirs of late Pinaki Lal Seal may wish to initiate in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, W.P. No. 5666 (W) of 2009 is disposed of."
(3.) The writ petition was filed in the year 2009 by Pinaki Lall Seal. During the pendency of the writ petition, he died and Smt. Archana Seal, Prabir Lall Seal and Sudip Lall Seal, being the appellants herein - claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased Pinaki Lall Seal - obtained an order from the learned Single Judge on 4th April, 2011 and had their names substituted in place and stead of the deceased Pinaki Lall Seal. When the matter came up for final hearing before the learned Single Judge, the Court took note of the fact that the original writ petitioner had died during the pendency of the writ petition. Further, the original writ petitioner was a shareholder of 1/48th share recognised under para 3 of the Award dated 25th October, 2000, passed in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 1997 (V) (Sailendra Lal Seal and Ors. v. The Union of India) . The subsequent stages after the award was passed were taken note of by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge also took note of the order dated 13th December, 2007, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, North 24-Parganas, Barasat, which was the subject-matter of challenge in the writ proceeding. In such a factual backdrop, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition while making it clear that the Court had in no way gone into the merits of the rival claims and/or counter-claims and all questions have deemed to be left open to the parties to be taken in any appropriate proceeding that the legal heirs of the original writ petitioner may wish to initiate in accordance with law.;