SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have challenged the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the report made under Section 5-A of the said Act and the notification issued under Section 6 of the said Act dated 7th Jan. , 1974. This application relates to the acquisition of premises No. 29, Chitta Ranjan Avenue, Calcutta and the area comprised is 0506 hectres. The said notification and the said report have been challenged on several grounds. Most of these grounds are similar to the grounds taken in the case of Banku Behari Dutta v. State of West Bengal which. In view of the said decision, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press most of these grounds. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalumiya Karimmiya v. State of Gujarat, most of these grounds are no longer open to challenge by the petitioner. The only ground upon which this application was pressed was that the petitioner had suggested to the Land Acquisition Collector that there were alternative accommodations available in premises No. 20, Ganesh Chandra Avenue and premises No. 23, Chitta Ranjan Avenue, Calcutta but the Land Acquisition Collector, according to the petitioner, without applying his mind to the suitability of the alternative accommodation offered, had made his report upon which the notification under Section 6 has been issued in the instant case. It was, therefore, urged that both, the report of the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 5-A of the said Act as well as the notification issued upon that report under Section 6 of the Act, are liable to be set aside.

( 2 ) IN Para. 14 of the petition, the petitioners have stated that the object of acquiring the petitioners' property was stated by the representative of M. R. T. S. at the first day's hearing to be an opening for landing stairs to the platform for the line passing from south to north for the rapid transit underground system. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the overhead manifestation of underground landing stairs was but insignificant and assuming without admitting that such landing stairs must be had there, if at all, only a portion of the south-east portion of the property of approximately 100 sq. ft. would be needed, of the total area of the petitioners' Petrol Pump consisting of 5140 sq. ft, approximately, that is, about 7 cottahs. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 1 agreed to investigate and find out the suitability of the alternative sites, viz. 20, Ganesh Chandra Avenue and 23, Chitta Ranjan Avenue, Calcutta. It was further stated that on the said alternative sites there were some kucha structures. It appears that thereafter the Land Acquisition Collector had referred the matter to the requiring authority, viz. Metropolitan Transport Project Railways and they by a letter dated 30th March, 1973 had intimated to the Land Acquisition Collector that the alternative premises would not suit them. The Land Acquisition Collector in his affidavit-in-opposition in answer to Rule Nisi, in the instant case, has stated that the suggestion of the petitioner company was referred to the Chief Project Engineer, M. T. P. Railways for consideration. The requiring authority, in reply, had intimated that the alternative accommodations, as suggested, would not suit the requirement of the requiring authority. The Land Acquisition Collector has further noted that the premises in question of the petitioners was acquired for a stair case for the use of the platform in connection with mass rapid transit system schedule. One Mr. Govind Narayan Fadke has affirmed an affidavit on 12th July, 1977 on behalf of the requiring authority. In his said affidavit he has stated, after giving the history of the scheme and the need for the said scheme, that at the time of the hearing of the objection, the proposed land acquisition plan, as per Gazette, was shown to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document