The court ruled that prior land acquisition proceedings lapsed due to non-compliance with statutory timelines, necessitating fresh proceedings under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. The writ petitioners, the respondents/State i.e. the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and respondent no. 3 i.e. the functionary of BSNL in WPA 23317 of 2023 are represented by their respective Counsels.

2. In WPA 3669 of 2025 the writ petitioners and the respondent no. 5 i.e. the functionary of BSNL authority are represented, however, none appears on behalf of the respondents/State and its instrumentalities i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 4 though on the earlier occasion Mr. Tarak Karan, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondents/State.

3. By filing WPA 23317 of 2023 the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities more specifically against the respondent no. 3/authority for recalculating the compensation and for payment of the same in respect of the petitioners’ land measuring about 1.22 acre in LR plot no. 1419 under Mouza – Tarakeshwar, District –Hooghly under Act XXX of 2013 along with other ancillary reliefs.

4. In WPA 3669 of 2025 the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities more specifically against the respondent no. 3 for quashing of the memo dated 29.11.2024 in view of lapse of LA proceeding being LA case no. 1-4/93-94 as well as notice under Section 9(3B) dated 15.02.2001 as published under Section 9(3B) of Act I of 1894 (West Bengal Amendment Act-I of 1997) along with further ancillary reliefs.

5. At the time of hearing, Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of BSNL authority in both the writ petitions at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the judgment and order dated 19.02.2003 as passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP 18458 (W) of 1998 wherein the predecessor in interest of the present writ petitioners is the writ petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh that from the said judgment and order dated 19.02.2003 it would reveal that the said co-ordinate Bench while disposing the writ petition passed an order commanding the jurisdictional collector to refer the matter to the concerned Court for the purpose of disposal of the dispute as was involved in the said writ petition.

6. Mr. Ghosh submits that from the materials as placed before this Court it would reveal that neither the writ petitioners nor the respondents/State have resorted to the jurisdiction of the civil court in terms of the judgment and order dated 19.02.2003 and on the contrary the writ petitioners have come forward by filing the instant two petitions on the alleged two different causes of action praying for the reliefs as mentioned in the prayer portions of the instant two petitions. It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh that since the order and judgment of the co-ordinate Bench as passed on 19.02.2003 has reached its finality on account of non-filing of any appeal either by the writ petitioners or by the respondents/State the instant two writ petitions cannot be held to be maintainable. It is thus submitted by Mr. Ghosh that the instant two writ petitions may be dismissed primarily on the ground of maintainability.

7. In course of his submission Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the materials as placed in connection with WPA 3669 of 2025. Drawing attention to page no. 35 in WPA 3669 of 2025 it is submitted by Mr. Banerjee that from the said paper it would reveal that a notice of requisition under Section 3 of Act II of