Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) Calcutta Improvement Trust (CIT) has field the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an award dated February 19, 1996 passed by the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal in Case No. 7 of 1989 (Valuation).
(2.) The facts giving rise to the instant writ application may be summarised thus : (a) CIT is a creature of a statute named Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 (Act) for the purpose of development of Calcutta. As per the provision of the Act a general improvement scheme known as Scheme No. III, Kasba Rashbehari Connector was framed. (b) For the purpose of giving effect to the said Scheme, land of the respondent No. 4 measuring 5 Bighas 8 Cottahs 9 Chittaks and 35 Sq. Ft. was acquired. (c) The Land Acquisition Collector made an award under Section II of the Land Acquisition Act (L.A. Act) at the rate of Rs. 5,684/- per Cottah and a sum of Rs. 3,150/- was awarded for the structure. The Statutory allowance and additional compensation under sub-section (2) and (1-A) of Section 23 of the L.A. Act were also granted. (d) Being dis-satisfied, the respondent No. 4 made a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act for enhancement of the compensation. The said reference was sent to the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal constituted under the Act for determination. (e) Before the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal, the said reference was contested by the State of West Bengal and the Tribunal by its award dated February 19, 1996 allowed the said reference case in part thereby enhancing the compensation for land to Rs. 8,88,370.33 ps., thus there was an enhancement of Rs. 2,70,724.77 ps. The award made for the structure was however not interfered with. The Tribunal also passed an order for statutory allowance of 30% on the added amount of Rs. 2.70,724.77 ps. and for additional compensation interest @ 12% per annum on the said added amount for the period from November 2, 1978 to September 6, 1986. It was further ordered that the amount enhanced by the Tribunal should carry interest @ 9% per annum for one year from December 3, 1986 and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the amount is remitted to the Tribunal. (f) Although there is a provision of an appeal to this Court under Section 77A of the Act, no appeal was preferred by the State of West Bengal against the award passed by the Tribunal. (g) On the allegation that the respondents No. 1, 2 and the petitioner herein did not perform their statutory duty by not remitting the amount of award made by the Tribunal, the respondent No. 4 moved a writ application before this Court thereby making respondents No. 1, 2 and the petitioner herein as parties. (h) The said Writ petition giving rise to C. O No. 12551 (W) of 1996 was disposed of by Mitra, J. on August 29, 1996 in the presence of the learned advocates for the State of West Bengal as well as the petitioner herein with the following order : "The respondents are directed to pay the compensation as awarded in annexure 'A' to the writ petition and as mentioned in annexure 'B' to the writ petition positively within four weeks from the date of communication of the order and I make it clear that the time limit so fixed above is per emptory and mandatory. With these observations the civil order is disposed of." (i) Instead of complying with the aforesaid order dated August 29, 1996 passed by Mitra, J. the petitioner has filed the instant writ application on February 24, 1998 i.e. after the lapse of 18 months.
(3.) Mr. Gupta, the learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the writ application has at the very outset relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Debi, reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 724 (U. P. Awas case) and contended that in the instant case as neither the C.I.T. was made party in the Tribunal nor was any notice of such proceeding served upon it, the award enhancing the compensation was not binding upon the petitioner. Mr. Gupta further contends that although the petitioner has a remedy by way of an appeal under Section 77A of the Act before this Court, as pointed out by the Apex Court in paragraph 25(3) of the aforesaid decision, the petitioner can also invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;