Judgment :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against a judgment dated September 17, 2025 passed in WPO No. 624 of 2008, whereby the appellant’s writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The primary relief sought in the writ petition was a declaration that there has been no acquisition proceeding in respect of the subject- plots, bearing Dag Nos. 3775, 3777 and 3788 in Mouza – Kasba, JL No.13, and that the respondent-Authorities never acquired any right, title and interest to deal with the said land or part thereof in any way.

3. As per the State-respondent and the KMDA, the requiring authority, upon due compliance of Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (for short, “Act II of 1948”), the subject-plots were acquired under Section 4 of the said Act and thereafter handed over to the requiring authority, the KMDA, upon which the KMDA has granted a licence in favour a third party being M/s. Haldiram Limited to fructify the purpose for which the land was first requisitioned and then acquired.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that service of notice of requisition under Section 3(2) of Act II of 1948 is mandatory. Since, in the present case, no such notice was served on the predecessor- in-interest of the appellant, the subsequent acquisition was itself vitiated and ought to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel, in support of his argument as to the mandatory nature of notice under Section 3(2), cites a co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Samarendra Nath Paul & Ors. v. Collector, Hooghly & Addl. District, Magistrate & Ors., reported at (1997) 1 Cal LJ 370, as well as two other co-ordinate Bench judgments of this Court in the matters of Sri Sailendra nath Pal & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Others, reported at (2010) 2 Cal LJ 15, and Mihir Kumar Sarkar and others v. State of West Bengal and others, reported at AIR 1972 Cal 8.

6. Apart from those, learned counsel cites S.M. Nandy and others v. The State of W.B. and others, reported at (1971) 1 SCC 688, where a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court turned down a challenge to the vires of Act II of 1948, inter alia on the ground that there is a provision for service of notice on the owner/occupier under Section 3(2) of the said Act and, consequentially, the said owner/occupier can make a representation to the State Government.

7. Learned counsel also places reliance on the language of Section 3(2), which uses the expression “shall”, stating that the same indicates the mandatory nature of the provision. As per sub-section (2) of Section 3, it is contended, such notice has to be served in the prescribed manner.

8. Rules 3 and 4 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the 1948 Rules”), respectively provide the mode and manner in which such notice is required to be served. Thus, it is reiterated that since no proper notice under the said provisions was served on the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, the acquisition proceeding is itself ought to have been set aside by the learned Single Judge.

9. Secondly, it is contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that in the facts of the present case, it is evident that no notice under Section 3(2) was served. It is pointed out that the State, in its supplementary affidavit filed at the hearing stage before the Writ Court, had relied on a document purporting to be a notice under Section 3(2). However, the said contention cannot be accepted on several counts. First, there is no signature of the authority on the first page of the said notice. Secondly, the space provided for service in the aforesaid requisition order is left vacant. Thirdly, the notice is not in Form-I, as provided in the 1948 Rules. Fourthly, it is argued that only a Special Land Acquisition Collector was authorised under Act II of 1948 to issue such notice, whereas it is the Land Acquisition Collec