IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the importance of satisfying the public purpose requirement under Section 3(f) and the need for compliance with the procedural safeguards of Section 5A in land acquisition proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

JAY SENGUPTA, J.

1. This is an application challenging the acquisition of premises No. 68, Golf Club Road, (now known as, Uday Shankar Sarani), which was sought to be acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted as follows. The petitioner was the owner of 68, Uday Shankar Sarani. The petitioner got the ownership of the said land by way of purchase. The property had area of 6 cottahs 15 chittacks and 43 sq. ft. (468.05 sq. meters). The premises No. 70 Uday Shankar Sarani, was just contiguous to premises No. 68, Uday Shankar Sarani. Smt. Kamala Banerjee was the owner of 70, Uday Shankar Sarani, having an area 32 sq. meters. The balance 436.10 sq. meter of 70, Uday Shankar Sarani, Kolkata stood vested to the State and after vesting the said area of 436.10 sq. meter was settled in favour of Shrutinandan, the respondent No. 3. Shrutinandan was a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. Pandit Ajoy Chakraborty, the respondent No. 4, used to run the said society alongwith its other members. After getting the said land, the authority of Shrutinandan started to make construction in the said land being premises No. 70, Uday Shankar Sarani, Kolkata. In course of such construction, Shrutinandan tried to encroach the premises being No. 68, Uday Shankar Sarani belonging to the petitioner and also started to stack building materials on the land of the petitioner for such construction. Accordingly, a dispute arose between the petitioner and the said Shrutinandan. For such attempt to encroach of the land, the petitioner filed criminal case and writ petition and orders were passed in the said proceeding. Lastly, the petitioner filed T.S. No. 33 of 1997, in the court of Learned 1st Munsif at Alipore for declaration of the title and permanent injunction impleading the said Shrutinandan and others as defendants in the said suit. In the said suit the petitioner got an ad-interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from damaging the boundary wall and from making any construction encroaching the land of the petitioner. Subsequently, various orders were passed in the said suit. Ultimately, the petitioner filed an application for contempt in the said suit alleging violation of the interim order of injunction passed in the said suit. During the pendency of the said contempt petition, the petitioner’s husband was served with a copy of the notification dated 20.03.2000 passed under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, purporting to acquire the land of the petitioner being premises No. 68, Uday Shankar Sarani, Kolkata. The alleged notification stated that the property was sought to be acquired for the purpose of expansion of Shrutinandan. On getting the notice of acquisition, the petitioner filed an objection against the said acquisition under Section 5A, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Various points were taken in the said objection. Main grounds of the objection were that there were no public purpose for acquisition, the acquisition was malafide, to avoid contempt proceeding in the suit, the acquisition proceeding was initiated. It was also contended in the said objection that acquisition would deprive the only residential accommodation of the petitioner. Thereafter, notice of hearing of 5A objection was served. The petitioner attended the hearing through representative and hearing was held. But the order passed in 5A objection was not served. Thereafter, the instant writ petition was filed challenging the acquisition proceeding of premises No. 68, Uday Shankar Sarani, Kolkata. The writ petition was moved on 17th October, 2001 when an interim order was passed, inter alia, directing that till 8 weeks after vacation the possession shall not be taken over by the respondents and though proceeding under Section 11 might be concluded but section 12 (2) notice shall not be served. The said interim order was extended from time to time. Lastl