G.N. Ray, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 2nd September, 198 7 passed by the learned trial Judge in C. O. No. 9100(W) of 1986. It appears that the respondents No.1 and 2 moved a writ petition before this Court, inter alia, challenging the acquisition of some plots of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It appears that a general improvement scheme No.101 was framed by the Calcutta Improvement Trust for the purpose of general improvement of the area in and around the Dhakuria Station Road. The said scheme includes also the widening of Dhakuria Station Road. The said scheme was later on modified by the Board of Trustees for the improvement of Calcutta and it was decided that the land required for the purpose of the said scheme, as modified. would be acquired and the rest of the land should be released from the said scheme . The scheme was published under Sec. 43 of the Calcutta Improvement Act and the scheme was published in the newspapers and also in the Calcutta Gazette and it appears from the Gazette Notification that premises no. 20C which was previously numbered as premises No.20B Dhakuria Station Road was one of the premises proposed to be acquired. It also appears that initially the entirety of the said premises No.20C Dhakuria Station Road was sought to be acquired, but in view of the modification of the scheme, a portion of the said premises measuring 9 ch. 9.ft. only was intended to be acquired.
(2.) It is the case of the appellant namely the Calcutta Improvement Trust, that the acquisition proceeding being L.A. Case No. 101 -7 of 1968 was modified and it was decided that 9 ch. 9 sq.ft. only appertaining to the said 20C, Dhakuria Station Road would be acquired for the purpose of widening the road. A notice under Sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 10th June, 1986 for the purpose of acquisition of the said premises and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 moved a writ petition before this Court, inter alia, challenging the said notification under Sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act.
(3.) A limited interim order was passed by this Court ex parte on the said application. On 1st August, 1986, the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner wrote a letter to the appellants which was received by the appellants on 31st July, 1986. By the said letter the appellants were informed that the learned trial Judge had passed an interim order directing the respondents including the appellants to maintain status quo as on 29th July, 1986 in respect of acquisition proceeding relating to petitioners until further orders. It is the case of the appellants that in view of such communication of the interim order passed by this Court, no further step was taken in respect of the said acquisition proceeding and no effect was given to the notification issued under Sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. The matter thereafter was taken up for hearing before the learned trial Judge. It, however, transpires that the learned trial Judge by entertaining the writ petition passed an interim injunction/only for a week and granted the writ petitioners liberty to ask for extension of the said interim injunction. The writ petitioners, however, chose not to make any application for extension of the interim order. The appellants have contended that as the appellants were informed by the learned Advocate that an interim order was passed by this Court directing parties to maintain status quo as on 29th July, 1986 until further orders of this Court, the appellants did not proceed with the acquisition proceeding and the proceeding, as such, could not be completed.;