PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.: These writ petitions were filed as Public Interest Litigations challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of about 1000 acres of land within the following mouzas, a) Gopalnagar, b) Singherbheri, c) Beraberi, d) Khaserberi and e) Bajemelia within the Police Station of Singur in the District of Hooghly.

2. Such acquisition process has been challenged by the writ petitioners mainly on the ground that the said area of land is the source of livelihood of 10,000 agricultural households and destroying the most of fertile lands which cannot be replaced, apart from the other subsidiary industries.

3. The writ petitioners challenged the entire acquisition process on the ground of mala fide and arbitrary intention and further for violating the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that for setting up a Small Car Project by Tatas would have been an acquisition of land following the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules”) and in order to avoid the said procedure it has been stated that the acquisition will be for a public purpose, namely, for employment generation and socio-economic development of the area by setting up of a Small Car Project. It is further stated that the State of West Bengal in connivance and in collusion with the Tatas and its Chairman, pretended to make this acquisition as for a public purpose at the expenses of the Government and delivered more land for the said purpose.

4. The said Notice was further challenged on the ground for non-application of mind and further the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) is vague. Further allegation has been made that several notifications under Section 4(1) of the said Act were issued containing smaller area so that the persons interested may not be able to find out that the total area of land which are to be acquisitioned for the said purpose. Therefore, it is stated that such notifications have been issued camouflaging the real object.

5. It is further alleged that in May, 2006, the Hon'ble Chief Minister announced that the Tatas has agreed to significantly increase their commitment in the State. He further stated that the plan would come up at Singur in the District of Hooghly. It is also alleged that the said fact would be corroborated from the statement made by the Chairman of the Tatas Motors Ltd. in the Annual Report of the said Company for the year 2005-2006.

6. It is further stated that the declarations under Section 6 of the said Act are made by the Authorities so hastily so that the land owners and/or the persons interested to file any effective objections could not get any chance to file their effective objections.

7. It is further stated that the payment of money out of the public exchequer in applying Section 11(2) of the said Act and even to the persons after making payment under Section 11(1) of the said Act is illegal. It was further alleged that the notification inviting objections under Section 5A of the said Act was wholly illusory and a fraud was committed in respect of the hearing of such objections under the said Section and, therefore, the entire process is void.

8. A writ petition being W. P. No. 28304 (w) of 2007 [Joydeep Mukherjee vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.] was moved on 9th February, 2007 before the Hon'ble Division Bench. A preliminary objection was taken as to the maintainability of the said writ petition by the State Authority. On 23rd March, 2007, the Hon'ble Division Bench without deciding the point of maintainability, which has been kept open, directed the State Government to disclose how much of the land area out of the total 997.11 acres of land have been acquired in terms of Section 11(2) of the said Act.

9. It further appears that it has been specifically stated by the State Authority in their affidavit affirmed on 23rd March, 2007 that at that