- (1.) In this petition, the Petitioner has sought review of the order dated-16.01.2008, passed in W.P. (C) No. 6793 of 2006. It has been stated that the process of acquisition of the Petitioner's land was initiated in Land Acquisition Case No. 6 of 1961-62 and Land Acquisition Case No. 5 of 1963-64. In that process, possession of the Petitioner's land was taken over by the State. However, final Award of compensation was not passed. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner had preferred the said writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 6793 of 2006 praying for a direction upon the Respondents to initiate a fresh proceeding against the Respondents under the Land Acquisition Act for awarding due compensation. This Court found that the matter was pretty old as the Petitioner had approached this Court after more than four decades. The Court dismissed the writ petition observing that the Petitioner's claim was stale.'
(2.) The Petitioner has stated that in fact, the matter was kept pending by the Respondent and the delay was on their part and not on the part of the Petitioner. It is further stated that under similar circumstance and fact situation, another writ petition W.P. (C) No. 1546 of 2005 filed by the same Petitioner in respect of another piece of land was disposed of by order dated-18.11.2009, remitting the case back to the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector of the District-Singhbhum East to issue fresh notices as required under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and to pass an Award for compensation in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.
(3.) Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the above facts could not be brought to the notice of this Court in absence of proper instructions and W.P. (C) No. 6793 of 2006 was disposed of by order dated-16.01.2008 under the impression created on the basis of the facts mentioned therein that the delay was on the part of the Petitioner, though the matter was kept pending for quite a long time by the Respondents. He further submitted that the State has already taken possession of the land long back on 31s' March, 1960, which has also been admitted in Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents and the Petitioner shall suffer great hardship and loss and injury, if the order dated-18.11.2009, passed in W.P. (C) No. 1546 of 2005 is not reviewed in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances. Learned Counsel submitted that this Court has already directed for taking fresh steps for acquisition and awarding compensation for the other piece of land of this Petitioner and the facts and circumstances being exactly identical in the instant case, the same order may be passed for the ends of justice and the Respondents be directed to take steps for proper acquisition and awarding compensation for the land, as has been directed in the order dated-18.11.2009, passed in W.P. (C) No. 1546 of 2005.;