JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present appeal arises at the behest of the writ petitioners in WPA No.12900 of 2014, assailing the judgment of the Writ Court dated February 20, 2025, whereby the writ petition was dismissed, being not maintainable and devoid of any merit, with costs of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2. In the writ petition, the primary relief sought was a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent-Authorities from giving any effect or further effect to a lease deed executed by the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited (WBIDCL) in favour of one Ganapati Flour & Foods (P) Ltd. and commanding the respondent-Authorities not to acquire the land of the writ petitioners for developing the Vidyasagar Industrial Park, for setting up manufacturing industries and commanding the respondents not to set up any flour mill/Atta mill accessories, spare parts and wheat products manufacturing unit on the petitioners’ land. Ancillary relief of injunction was also sought.

3. The genesis of the case was a Notification dated November 27, 2006 published in the Official Gazette under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the LA Act”), whereby several plots of land, including the present subject-plots, were acquired at the public expense for public purpose, namely employment generation and socio-economic development of the area-in-question by setting up Telcon & Allied Industrial Units. After the said acquisition, the land was apparently handed over by the State Government to the WBIDCL with the object of developing the acquired land for the purpose of setting up of Vidyasagar Industrial Park.

4. Pursuant thereto, a registered lease deed was executed on September 6, 2012 by the WBIDCL in favour of Ganapati Flour & Foods (P) Limited.

5. According to the writ petitioners/appellants, since the acquisition was for the purpose of a particular company, being the Telcon and Allied Industrial Units, the payment of compensation ought to have been from the end of the said company and not by way of public expense. Moreover, it is argued that ultimately the acquired land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, by executing the impugned lease deed in favour of a flour mill company instead of Telcon and Allied Industrial Units.

6. Thus, the acquisition, it is argued, is bad in law on such ground as well, since the land was not utilised for any public purpose. The projected purpose of setting up Vidyasagar Industrial Park, it is contended, is different from that mentioned in the Section 4 Notification, which was for the setting up of Telcon and Allied Industrial Units.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants argues that the learned Single Judge, despite holding that the writ petition is not maintainable, proceeded to adjudicate the same on merits, thereby exceeding his jurisdiction.

8. Even on the ground of maintainability, it is argued that the learned Single Judge erred in law as the premise of challenge to the concerned lease deed was that there was never any proper and lawful acquisition. Thus, the challenge in the writ petition hits at the root of the acquisition process itself and the writ petition was, accordingly, maintainable. The scope of the pending suit in respect of the concerned lease deed, it is submitted, which was relied on by the learned Single Judge, is on a different footing and could not debar the writ petitioners/appellants from approaching the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the award in respect of the subject-plot was declared in the name of one Vivek Bajoria, an ex-Director of the appellant no.1-Company, despite the appellant no.1-Company being the owner of the property when the same was acquired. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the said Shri Bajoria had already resigned from the appellant no.1- Company, and relies on a purported resolution of the comp