The main legal point established in the judgment is the right to possession of the land under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act (II), 1948 and the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.

Arindam Sinha, J.

1. Petitioner no.1 is a company and petitioner no.2, shareholder director therein. Bhagya Laxmi Cotton Mills and Industries Ltd. was amalgamated with petitioner company under order dated 6th November, 1979 passed by Company Judge in CP 421 of 1979. Said mill had on 18th January, 1956 taken lease of 43.5 bighas of land situate at Belghoria being premises no.5/5, B.T. Road, Kolkata-700056. According to petitioners there were some unauthorised occupants on part of the lease hold and said mill had in its own occupation, area of 27 bighas and 14 cottahs.

2. By WP 13495 (W) of 2005 petitioners contend, sometime in August, 1989 a part of the land was requisitioned under West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act (II), 1948. This requisition was in respect of 1.6 acres of land taken possession on 18th August, 1989. On 20th September, 1990 about 2.76 acres of land was also requisitioned. Then there was further requisition made of 1.92 acres of land under Act II. These lands were subsequently notified to have been acquired. Some compensation was paid and proceedings were continuing for determination of the rest when, by order dated 1st February, 2000, Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal sought to resume about 5.86 acres of the land. Petitioners contend, simultaneously with issuance of order for resumption, respondent authorities took actual physical possession of entire land, then in possession of petitioners in terms of provisions of West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.

3. Order of resumption was ultimately challenged by petitioners in West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. By judgment and order dated 13th June, 2003 the Tribunal quashed order of resumption dated 1st February, 2000. Petitioners contend, State finally accepted said order dated 13th June, 2003 passed by the Tribunal but failed and neglected to restore possession of the land to petitioners. Part of subject matter of since set aside order of resumption is land that was not subject matter of earlier acquisitions. Hence, petitioners by WP 13495 (W) of 2005 have sought delivery of actual physical possession of 3.815 acres of land, possession of which had been taken by State pursuant to said, since set aside, resumption order dated 1st February, 2000, as were not subject matter of acquisition proceedings.

4. By WP 13219 (W) of 2012 petitioners contend, by and on basis of agreement dated 27th October, 1989 between petitioner company and Sree Saraswati Press (1984) Limited, licence was granted to latter for use and occupation of area of land measuring 75,307 sq. ft., also being part of said premises, at agreed licence fee, initially for period of 41 days to be extended further till vacant possession of licence premises was delivered to petitioners. On 25th March, 1991 requisition was made as aforesaid and possession taken of about 1.92 acres of land being that which was under occupation of Sree Saraswati Press. State thereafter acquired this land under Act II as aforesaid. Said Act on expiry of 31st March, 1997 ceased to have any effect as lapsed. By amendment, sub-sections (3A) and (3B) were inserted in section 17 of Land Acquisition Act, 1984. No notice was issued under these amended provisions. According to petitioner, Saraswati Press stopped payment of licence fees with effect from April, 1991, pursuant to requisition/acquisition. Hence, petitioners' this writ petition for getting vacant possession of 1.92 acres of land under occupation of Saraswati Press.

5. These writ petitions came to be assigned to this Bench. Order sheet contains order dated 14th June, 2016 recording that learned advocate then appearing for State, relied on opposition filed in WP 13495 (W) 2005 to submit, there could be no reason for State to initiate acquisition proceedings on land that is resumable by it. Acquisition proceedings were resorted to mistakenly by reason of gap of communication between office of Collector and Land Reforms