The publication of land acquisition notices in one newspaper does not invalidate proceedings if the affected party received notice, and prior judicial findings are binding unless overturned by a larger bench.

JUDGMENT :

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)

1. By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent authorities for not giving effect to the notices in connection with LAP Case No. 3 of 1982-83 which have been annexed with the instant writ petition with the mark Annexures – ‘A’ and ‘G’ with a further prayer for declaring the land acquisition proceeding as initiated by the respondent authorities as wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction.

2. In course of his submission Mr. Gayen, learned Advocate for the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the order dated 25.03.1992 as passed in connection with this case by a co-ordinate Bench whereby and whereunder the instant writ petition was dismissed. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the order dated 19.08.1993 as passed by a Division Bench of this High Court in FMAT 63 of 1993 wherein the said order dated 25.03.1992 was set aside and the instant writ petition was remanded back for adjudication afresh. It is further submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that such remand is in the nature of an open remand.

3. Mr. Gayen in course of his argument at the very outset draws attention of this Court to Annexures – ‘A’ and ‘G’ to the instant writ petition being copies of the notice of LAP Case No. 3 of 1982-83. Attention of this Court is drawn to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act of 1894’). It is submitted by Mr. Gayen that it is an admitted position that the aforesaid two notices were published only in one newspaper which is contrary to the provision of Section 4 of the said Act of 1894 and, therefore, on this ground alone the aforesaid two notices preceding the land acquisition proceeding may be quashed. It is further submitted by Mr. Gayen that on perusal of Section 4 of the said Act of 1894 it would reveal that the legislative intent to publish the said notice under Section 4 of the said Act of 1894 is mandatory in nature and is not directory.

4. In his next fold of submission Mr. Gayen draws attention of this Court to Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act of 2013). It is submitted by Mr. Gayen that in view of the provision of Section 24 Sub-Section (2) of the said Act of 2013 in the event an award under Section 11 of the said Act of 1894 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013 but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the land acquisition proceeding as initiated under the provision of the said Act of 1894 shall be deemed to have been lapsed.

5. It is thus contended by Mr. Gayen that from the materials as placed before this Court it would reveal that though a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act of 1894 was issued but neither the possession of the land in question was taken nor any compensation has been disbursed and, therefore, there cannot be any hesitation to hold that the land acquisition proceeding as proposed to be initiated under the aforementioned two notices under challenge may be declared as lapsed and appropriate relief may be granted to the writ petitioners in accordance with the prayers made in the writ petition.

6. Per contra, Mr. Siddiqui, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Adak, learned Advocate for the State at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the pleadings and prayers as made in the writ petition. It is submitted by Mr. Siddiqui that within the four corners of the said writ petition there is no averment on the part of the writ petitioners that after issuance of the notices under challenge the respondent authorities have not taken possession of the acquired land. It is further submitted by Mr. Siddiqui, learned Senior Advocate that though in the prayer of the writ petit