PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:

1. Since the identical set of facts and identical questions of law are involved in the instant three writ petitions, this Court proposes to dispose of the instant three writ petitions by a common judgment.

2. Learned advocate for the writ petitioners filed three separate exceptions to the supplementary affidavits as filed by the respondent no. 11/authority in connection with the instant three writ petitions.

3. Let the three exceptions as filed today on behalf of the writ petitioners be taken on record.

4. By filing the instant three writ petition the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of the appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities more specifically; against the respondent no. 2 for quashing of the orders dated 28.08.2022 whereby and whereunder the writ petitioners’ claim for having job in lieu of acquired land has been turned down.

5. In course of his submission Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to paragraph no. 2 of the reports as submitted by the respondent no. 11 and as affirmed on 20.11.2023. It is submitted by Mr. Ray that from the averments