Dipak Prakas Kundu, J. - (1.) In this writ application Calcutta Improvement Trust (hereinafrer referred to as CIT) has challenged an award of additional compensation under Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) and compensation for damage under Section 48-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) passed by an order dated 23.12.88 by the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in case No. 4 of 1983 (V) under Section 18 of the said Act.
(2.) The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4 on 20.1.98 submitted before the Court that the respondent No. 4 shall not file any affidavit-in-opposition in connection with the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4 also submitted that the main application may be disposed of. The order dated 20.1.98 passed by this Court reads as follows:- "The learned Advocate for the petitioner filed an affidavit of service on behalf of the petitioner showing service upon the respondents No. 1 and 2 pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 15.1.98. It further appears that on 15.1.98 the deponent of the affidavit of service went to serve a copy of the writ petition and a copy of the letter dated 15.1.98 issued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner communicating the order passed by the Court on 15.1.98 upon the respondent No. 3 at the office of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal. It further appears that he was told by one Sri Tapan Das, an employee of the Tribunal, that the learned President of the Tribunal has retired and the said employee of the Tribunal declined to receive the service. Under these circumstances I accept that the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 have been duly served. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4 stated before this Court that the respondent No. 4 shall not file any affidavit-in- opposition in connection with the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4 also submitted that the main application may be disposed of. As stated earlier the learned Advocate for the petitioner has made his submission. The learned Advocate for respondent No. 4 is making his submission. The matter is heard in part. The matter shall appear tomorrow immediately after the "To be mentioned" matters. Interim order is extended until further order of this court."
(3.) Accordingly the matter was finally heard, the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent No. 4, made submissions on behalf of their clients.;