APURBA SINHA RAY,J. - (1.)The writ petitioner/appellant says that he was a lawful occupier of a godown at 128/1, G.T. Road, Salkia, Howrah by virtue of two registered deeds of lease. While the petitioner was in actual physical possession of the said godown, on February 09, 2010 he was asked to vacate the godown by 5/7 persons and from them he came to know that a purported acquisition proceeding had taken place before the Special Law Acquisition Officer as the property was requisitioned for 'Salkia Flyover Project' at the instance of Howrah Improvement Trust (HIT in short). Subsequently, the petitioner was forcibly evicted from the said godown by the H.I.T. after confiscating the goods.
(2.)The writ petitioner challenged such action by filing a writ petition being W.P. No. 4800(W) of 2010 on the ground that no notice under Sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was served on him though he was a lawful occupier of the said godown. He came to know about such acquisition proceeding only when his godown was attempted to be taken over and not before that. However, during the pendency of the proceeding the petitioner came to learn that Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the H.I.T. to rehabilitate all the evictees, and accordingly, he prayed for such benefit to be bestowed upon him, by filing an affidavit and such prayer was not opposed by the H.I.T. by filing any affidavit-in-opposition. According to the Learned Single Judge, the lease deed of the petitioner was not registered, and the petitioner did not object to the notices under Sec. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and there can, according to the Learned Judge, be no notice to those whose occupation is not known. Not a single word was uttered in the said judgment regarding non-service of notice to the writ petitioner under Sec. 9(3) of the said Act of 1894. Hence the present appeal.
(3.)Learned Senior Advocate, Sri Saptansu Basu, appearing for the appellant, has placed his arguments mainly on four points.