Girish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) The subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition is a notification dated 3rd May, 2001 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and published in the Sandhya Aajkal on 4 th May, 2001. The facts and circumstances of this case may briefly be summarised as follows: By a notification dated 14th September, 1965 issued under section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962 a piece of land including pacca building therein measuring 5 bighas more or less was requisitioned by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, 24 Pgs. (North), for the purpose of setting up a fire station at a monthly rental of Rs. 1,800/-. On or with effect from 10th July, 1968 the Defence of India Act, 1962 became inoperative. The property was however not derequestioned except for a portion of the pacca construction which was released in the year 1962 itself. A writ petition was filed seeking release of the premises, registered as CR No.3683 (W) of 1981, which was disposed of by an order dated 15th September, 1983 directing the authorities to consider the representation of the writ petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 6th December, 1985 by a Division Bench of this Court directing the State to release the property and to make over the vacant possession to the owners. The State was also directed to pay ad hoc occupation charges subject to finalisation of the actual dues. The Division Bench however added that the order was without prejudice to the right of the State to validly acquire the premises fully or any part thereof in accordance with law. The possession was not made over to the owners. A notice instead under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 was issued by the State which was challenged by the petitioners and their writ petition was registered as C.O. No. 934 (W) of 1986. The writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 11th September, 1981. The petitioners preferred an appeal which was registered as FMAT No.3236 of 1989. During the pendency of the appeal both the parties arrived at a settlement in pursuance whereof a compromise petition was filed by the parties jointly in November 1998. An affidavit on behalf of the State of West Bengal, affirmed on 18th March, 2001 by one Shri Haider, affirming the settlement arrived at between the parties was filed wherein the following amongst other averments were made: "At present, therefore the concerned authority has decided to acquire only a part of the property measuring 33 cottahs 14 chittakas 26.58 sq.ft and to release the remaining portion of the land in favour of the owner by mutual compromise agreement subject to withdrawal of the instant appeal with reference to appellant's letter sent to State Government on 28.8.92, 28.6.95, 6.11.95 and other occasion. It has been decided that after such withdrawal of instant appeal on the basis of the mutual compromise joint agreement as mentioned hereunder the concerned authority will have to be asked to issue notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the property to be acquired as mentioned in the said agreement as there under and the remaining portion of the property is to be released from requisition by the concerned authority at present. The owner of the property is entitled to requisition compensation upto the date of acquisition or release of the property and accordingly a joint compromise agreement has been prepared."
(2.) The pending appeal was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 6th April, 2001. Although the compromise petition also appears to have been listed along with the appeal but the Appellate Court did not advert to that aspect at all and decided the appeal solely on the question of legality of the requisition dated 10th January, 1986. The Appellate Court held that the requisition was illegal. The appeal, therefore, was allowed with a consequent direction upon the State to make over vacant and peaceful possession of the entire premises within a period not later than 4 weeks as also to pay the occupation charges.
(3.) The State aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Court preferred a special leave petition wherein reference was specifically made to the compromise arrived at between the parties. That, as a matter of fact, was one of the grounds advanced on behalf of the State before the Apex Court for interfering with the order of the Appellate Court which reads as follows: "For that the learned Division Bench committed serious error by failing to take judicial notice of the negotiations held between the parties at the instance of the respondents herein to facilitate smooth acquisition of a part of the requisitioned land. It is submitted that during the course of hearing both the parties had informed the learned Division Bench about the negotiations between the parties, yet the learned Division Bench failed to take notice of such subsequent developments in regard to the dispute.";