Chirrarosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.) The petitioner, Balaram Mukherjee, is a lunatic represented by his wife Smt. Chinmoyee Mukherjee, who was appointed as his legal guardian in Act IV, Case No. 56 of 1459 of the Court of the District Judge, 24 Parganas. The petitioner claims to be the joint owner of Plot Nos. 412, 415, 418, 2400 to 2404 and 422 mouza Kantalpara, district 24 Parganas.
(2.) On 12th September, 1974 the Government of West Bengal issued Notification No. 15126 LA/4M 4/74 dated 1st August, 1974 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act stating that Cadestral Plot Nos. 412 to 416, 497, 2400 to 2407 measuring more or less 4717 hectares were likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, for provision of a hawkers corner in the village of Kanta' para, P S. Naihati Municipality. The said proposed acquisition was to be at the expenses of the Naihati Municipality. Thereafter the Government of West Bengal issued Notification No. 19054-LA(II)-4M-4/74 dated 9th November, 1976 declaring that the aforesaid plots of land measuring 4717 hectares of land were needed for a public purpose namely, for provision of a hawkers corner at Kantalpara at the expenses of the Naihati Municipality. On 11th April, 1978 the present writ petition was made ready and thereafter it was moved and this Rule was issued. This Civil Rule was previously placed before B.C. Basak, J. for hearing. The learned Single Judge has been pleased to refer this Rule to the Division Bench for hearing. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties at length.
(3.) Mr. Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the State, and Mr. budhis Dasgupta, appearing on behalf of the respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the main availability of this Rule. It is now undisputed that on 29th March, 1978 the petitioner had filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference to the Land Acquisition Judge for determination of the amount of compensation payable for the acquired plots in which the petitioner claims interest. The petitioner in his writ petition, however, did not disclose that he had applied to the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for making a reference to the Court the question of enhancement of compensation for the acquired plots in which he claims to be interested. According to Mr. Chatterjee, by filing the said reference petition, the petitioner had accepted the impugned acquisition proceeding as valid and legal. Having thus elected to receive compensation, the petitioner had become estopped from filing the present writ petition challenging acquisition of the plots in question.;