( 1 ) THIS Rule namely C R. No. 11382 (W) of 1982 has been heard analogously with other Civil; Rules because common questions of law are involved in all these cases, Civil Rule No. 1382 (W) of 1982 and a number of other writ cases challenging the vires of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. On 12th December, 1985, the said Division Bench was pleased to make a reference to the Special Bench by the following order:-"these group of writ petitions challenge the vires of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981. On the question of applicability of the Act to certain kinds of land, it may become necessary to reconsider a Division Bench decision of this Court in Appeal No. 239 of 1978 (Jatadhari Daw and Grandsons v. Smt. Radha Debi and Anr.) pronounced on September 6, 1985. We deem it desirable that these group of writ petitions may properly engage the attention of the Special Division Bench. Other questions raised in these writ petitions relate to substantial questions of law of general importance. In the circumstances, the entire cases may be referred to the Special Division Bench. Let the papers be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary orders. "

( 2 ) AS the said Rules have been heard analogously, the judgment passed in Civil Rule No. 11382 (and) of 1982 will form the basis of the judgment of all the writ cases heard analogously and the special facts concerning some of the writ proceedings will be mentioned whenever reference to such special facts will be necessary for the disposal of such Rules.

( 3 ) MR. S. Pal, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in C. R. No. 11382 (W) of 1982 has made the principal argument because Civil Rule No. 11382 (W) of 1982 was taken up first for hearing and the learned counsels appearing in other matters have indicated the special facts concerning their cases and have, only supplemented the main argument advanced by Mr. Pal on points which, according to the learned counsels, require to be highlighted specifically. As Mr. Pal has made the principal argument, we intend to refer to his arguments in some detail, The arguments of other learned counsels for the petitioners will be referred if and when necessary.

( 4 ) IN the Civil Rule No. 11382 (W) of 1982, two principal reliefs have been sought for by the writ petitioners viz. (i) a declaration that the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as impugned Act) has no application to the properties mentioned in the writ petition and (ii) a declaration that the impugned Act is ultra vires the Constitution of India. The factual aspects of the case have been indicated in the writ petition and also in the supplementary affidavit. No affidavit-in-opposition has, however, been filed by the State respondents either to the writ petition or to the supplementary affidavit The relevant and essential facts which emerge from the writ petition and the supplementary affidavits are (a) the petitioners are the owners of ten properties as mentioned in paragraph 7 of the supplementary affidavit and (b) the land comprised in the ten properties mentioned in the schedule had been let out to the tenants on which pucca structures had been constructed by the respective lessees, The Municipal assessment records since annexed to the supplementary affidavit show that the said structures existing on the lands in question are pucca structures. In the absence of any affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents either to the writ petition or to the supplementary affidavit, the Court may proceed on the footing that the factual features as indicated by the writ petition are not in dispute.

( 5 ) THE submissions made by Mr. S. Pal on behalf of the petitioners in C. R. No. 11382 (W) of 1982 may be summarized under two broad heads: (a)what is the scope, ambit and effect of the