The absence of valid title documents negates a party's standing to contest land acquisition, as legally requisite procedures had been followed.

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 respondents/authorities prohibiting them to take possession and/or creating any disturbance and/or causing any interference with regard to the writ petitioner’s possession in respect of the land being RS Plot nos. 3777, 3775 and 3788 along with other ancillary reliefs.

2. At the time of hearing Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page nos. 20a, 21a and 22a of the instant writ petition being the copies of three RS ROR in respect of the aforementioned three plots of land as stood in the name of one Prafulla Kumari Dutta.

3. Drawing attention to paragraph no.9 of the instant writ petition it is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the said three plots of land were never vested and thus those three plots of land were never in possession either with the State and its instrumentalities or with the KMDA authority, the requiring body.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that it is the further case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner has come to know that the KMDA Authority has hung up a sign board in the name of one M/s Haldiram over the said three plots of land of the writ petitioner which was however pulled down.

5. It is contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that it is further case of the writ petitioner that in respect of the said three plots of land no acquisition proceeding was ever initiated. It is further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that from page no. 27 of the instant writ petition being a copy of memo dated 02.09.1996 it would reveal that under the cover of the said memo dated 02.09.1996 the KMDA authority issued a notice to the said Prafulla Kumari Dutta asking her to furnish original deed and other related documents in respect of the structure as standing on the said three plots of land which according to the writ petitioner was duly complied with.

6. Drawing attention to page no.28 of the instant writ petition it is further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that under cover of a memo dated 06.03.1999 the KMDA authority intimated the said Prafulla Kumari Dutta that it has decided to bring those three plots of land under primary notification under Section 4 of Act II of 1894. It is further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that at no material point of time, in respect of the aforementioned three plots of land, any notice under Section 3 of Act II of 1948 was published and gazetted.

7. Drawing attention to page nos. 29 and 30 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the information slip as filed by one Babu Dutta, the Superintendent of LA Office, Calcutta intimated that the aforementioned three plots in Mauza Kasba were not affected by any LA proceeding in between the period 1984 to 16.05.1995. It is further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that even from page no.31 of the instant writ petition it would reveal that by issuing a memo dated 07.01.2001 Collector, South-24-Parganas has passed an order for cancellation of a mistaken order of requisition under West Bengal Act III of 1984 in respect of certain portions in RS Dag nos.3775 and 3777 and in respect of the entire portion of RS Dag no. 3788.

8. At this juncture Mr. Chatterjee draws attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by the respondent/State. Drawing attention to paragraph 6(c) of the said affidavit-in-opposition it is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee though it i