Judgment 1. A group of persons representing "sarbajanin Durgotsab Committee" has filed this writ petition asking the respondent to refrain from proceeding any further with requisition and acquisition of 'lalar Math' comprising Municipal holding Nos. J296 and J298, paharpur Road within Garden Reach P. S. They have further asked for restraining the respondents from interfering with petitioners' user of the said land by way of performing religious worship and other activities. The petitioners are members of a club registered under the Societies Registration act. There was a field commonly known as 'lalar Math' comprised of plot Nos. 267 to 270 of Mouza Garden Reach under Garden Reach Police Station in the district of 24-Parganas. This land was lying vacant and the petitioners are performing Durga Puja in the said vacant place. The Committee was popularly known as "banerjee Bagan Durgotsab Committee". The owners of the land unsuccessfully protested against the activities of this Committee. Nevertheless the petitioners performed various activities upon the said open place. The said vacant place was used for game and sports, meeting and seminars and for religious and political functions. Durga Puja is being performed in the said open space since 1951. The club had different sub committees. On 18th January, 1991 some employees of the Calcutta municipal Corporation fixed a sign board on the land indicating use of the sit for super-market to be sponsored by Calcutta Municipal Corporation. On enquiry the petitioners came to know that the said vacant land was being acquired by the State at the instance of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The petitioners thereafter filed a suit in the 5th Court of Munsif at Alipore and interim order of injunction was granted in favour of the petitioners. Calcutta municipal Corporation entered appearance and filed an application under order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code for vacating the interim order. The petitioners came to know the fact of requisition and acquisition at that point of time. Since the Civil Court is not competent to adjudicate the legality of the acquisition proceeding the petitioners had to approach this court in its constitutional jurisdiction. 2. THE writ is being opposed by Calcutta Municipal Corporation and commissioner of Calcutta Municipal Corporation figuring as respondent nos. 3 and 4 respectively. The respondents challenged the locus standi of the petitioners to maintain this writ application. Now there is no controversy that 'lalar Math' comprising plot nos. 2. THE writ is being opposed by Calcutta Municipal Corporation and commissioner of Calcutta Municipal Corporation figuring as respondent nos. 3 and 4 respectively. The respondents challenged the locus standi of the petitioners to maintain this writ application. Now there is no controversy that 'lalar Math' comprising plot nos. 267 to 270 of Mouja Garden Reach is sought to be acquired under West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948) hereinafter called the Act by the State Government for Calcutta municipal Corporation. 3. SECTION 3 reads as follows : (1) If the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do for maintaining supplies and services essential to he life of the community (or for increasing employment opportunities for the people by establishing commercial estates and industrial estates in different areas) or for providing proper facilities for transport, communication, irrigation or drainage, or for the creation of better living conditions in rural or urban areas, not being 3***** an industrial or other area excluded by the State Government by a notification in this behalf, by the construction or reconstruction of dwelling places in such areas (or for purposes connected therewith or incidental (hereto), the State Government may, by order in writing, requisition any land and may make such further orders as appear to it to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisitioning: provided that no land used for purpose of religious worship of used by an educational or charitable institution shall be requisitioned under this section. (1a) A Collector of a district, (an Additional District Magistrate or the first Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta.) when authorized by the State Government in this behalf, may exercise within his jurisdiction the powers conferred by sub-section (1. (2) An order under sub-section (1) shall be served in the prescribed manner on the owner of the land and where the order relates to land in occupation (of an occupier, not being the owner of the land, also on such occupier. (3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. (3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. SECTION 3 (2) of the said Act provides that an order under sub-section 1 has to be served upon the owner and occupier of the premises. Therefore, if the petitioners succeed in showing that they are occupiers of the premises sought to be acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the Calcutta municipal Corporation they have definitely a locus standi to maintain the writ. The petitioners rely upon., several annexures to the writ application. On a careful scrutiny of the same it would be found that Banerjee Bagan Durgotsab committee" had performed Durga Puja from time to time. It will also appear that permission was sought for user of the said field either from the said committee or from some-committees which are claimed to be sub-committees of the parent committee. Even assuming for argument's sake that these documents indicate occasional possession of the petitioners it is not sufficient to confer on them a locus standi since anything short of a continuous possession is no possession of the petitioners contemplated under Sectior3 (2)of the Act. In other words, they are no occupiers within the meaning of Section 3 (2) of the Act unless they succeed in showing a continuous possession. The possession of the lawful owners will be deemed to have reverted to them as soon as casual possession of some trespassers cease. In that view of the matter the annexures to the writ application do not help the petitioners. The petitioners rely upon annexure "a" to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4. It is a possession certificate acknowledging delivery of possession to Calcutta Municipal Corporation, The return would show that possession was given subject to removal of construction assured by Borough Chairman. Therefore, there is no doubt that certain construction was found to be existing on the disputed land. In the meantime, there has been a local inspection by a Special Officer appointed by this Court. Special Officer found a Temple in the middle of the land where image off the Shiva Durga was found. He also found one seat (bedi) at the locale. In the meantime, there has been a local inspection by a Special Officer appointed by this Court. Special Officer found a Temple in the middle of the land where image off the Shiva Durga was found. He also found one seat (bedi) at the locale. There cannot be any doubt therefore that certain construction is existing on the disputed land. The State of West Bengal did not file any affidavit-to-opposition but argued the case. The file has been placed before me wherefrom it is evident that a notice contemplated under Section 3 (2) of the Act was served upon one Shri Joydeb Ghosh of Banerjee Bagan unnayan Sangha. It lends support to the contention of the petitioners that the land was not in possession by its lawful owners. Furthermore, the Munsif, 5th court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 46> of 1991 in his order No. 24 dated 3-10-1991 found that the respondents were in possessiori till the and of 1990. The said court permitted the petitioners to (raise temporary structure for Durga Puj and directed removal of the same within 7 days after the performance of the puja. This order was passed on 3-10-91, The possession certificate is dated 18-1-91. Evidently, therefore, the structure referred to in the learned Munsif s order cannot be identified with the structure referred to in the possession certificate which date back earlier. The materials on record make it abundantly clear that the petitioners have structure to the disputed land and therefore they are occupiers within the meaning of Section 3 (2) of the Act. Consequently they are entitled to an order under sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the Act. It cannot therefore be urged that in this revisional application the petitioner's have no locus standi. The respondents contend that the petition is liable to be dismissed to limine. It is submitted that while the petitioners have admitted that they filed a Title Suit in the Court of Munsif they suppressed the fact that their petition for injunction was ultimately dismissed. On account of supressiori of this material fact the writ is liable to be dismissed, it is urged, since such suppression misleads the court, in the instant case the fact of dismissal of the injunction petition is not a material fact the suppression whereof could result in dismissal of the writ application. On account of supressiori of this material fact the writ is liable to be dismissed, it is urged, since such suppression misleads the court, in the instant case the fact of dismissal of the injunction petition is not a material fact the suppression whereof could result in dismissal of the writ application. The alleged suppression of fact has absolutely no impact on the dispute under adjudication to this writ application. 5. SIMILARLY, the delay that has been caused to bringing the writ application is not fatal in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is true that some time in early 1991 the writ petitioners came to know that the State government is proceeding to acquire the land. The writ petition was filed as late as on 27-l1-91. The petitioners discovered that a comprehensive relief is-not available in the Civil Court. It dawned to them then that only the writ court can examine the legality and propriety of the order of the State Government acquiring the property. It is argued that in the meantime the Calcutta municipal Corporation has raised boundary wall and spent money to test the soil. According to them, huge materials have been collected and payment of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and odd has been mads to the Government. The payment has been made very recently. Acquisition was proposed in the year 1984. While the respondents could afford o sleep over their proposal for long seven years they cannot now be heard to say that the writ is liable to be dismissed on account of unexplained delay of the petitioners. 6. THERE is no substance in the argument that the petitioners cannot initiate parallel proceeding. It is true that a suit asking for some reliefs including injunction against the respondents is pending before the 5th Court of Munsif at Alipore. The writ is pending here. By no stretch of imagination can these two actions be deemed to be parallel proceedings. As a matter of fact, the relief that is available in the writ can by mo means be granted by the Munsif. Therefore, if the petitioners have in their wisdom, of course belatedly, initiate the writ proceeding it is not liable to be dismissed only on the ground of initiation of parallel proceedings. Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, appearing for the writ petitioners attacked the respondents on different grounds. Therefore, if the petitioners have in their wisdom, of course belatedly, initiate the writ proceeding it is not liable to be dismissed only on the ground of initiation of parallel proceedings. Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, appearing for the writ petitioners attacked the respondents on different grounds. It is contended that Section 537 of calcutta Municipal Corporation Act prescribed mode for acquisition by the municipality, and therefore by implication the invocation of West Bengal Act ii of 1948 is excluded. On a careful examination of Section 537 of the Calcutta municipal Corporation Act it would be found that the State Government can acquire for the benefit of the Municipal Corporation. Some provisions of Land acquisition Act have been made applicable in this proceeding. It cannot be spelt out from the provision itself that it excludes the application of West Bengal Act II of 1948. In the first place, the provision as contained in Section 537 of Calcutta Corporation Act is not comprehensive nor does it lay down the entire procedure for acquisition. It cannot therefore be contended by Mr. Mukherjee that the acquisition for the Corporation has to be made in accordance with the provision of Calcutta Corporation Act or not at all. It is undoubtedly well settled that a creature: of a statute has to act in accordance with the mode laid down in the Act itself or not at all. This doctrine is applicable in a case where a comprehensive provision has been codified in the Act. It will be found that the procedure for acquisition has not been laid down in Section 537. Therefore, Section 537 of the Calcutta Corporation Act is not a self contained provision of acquisition. There is a second line of argument. West Bengal Act II of 1948 contains an emergency provision. Even assuming that section 537 of the Calcutta Corporation Act, being a provision in the special statute the Corporation, has to resort to this for acquisition for it own purposes. West Bengal Act II of 1948 can be resorted to In a case of emergency. The respondents have stated that they have to complete the project by March, 1992. In other words, if the respondents have in their discretion resorted to emergency provision the court will not strike it down or unveil the veil unless recourse thereto is malafide or a colourable exercise of power. The respondents have stated that they have to complete the project by March, 1992. In other words, if the respondents have in their discretion resorted to emergency provision the court will not strike it down or unveil the veil unless recourse thereto is malafide or a colourable exercise of power. In the instant case, I am unable to hold that recourse to the emergency provision is either malafide or a colourable exercise of power. Therefore, the respondents can very well take recourse to West Bengal Act II of 1948 despite the provision contained in Calcutta Corporation Act. 7. IT answers Mr. Mukherjee's contention that emergency provision cannot be taken recourse to since the proceeding is pending since 1984. In order to acquire land in terms of the provision contained in the Act some formalities have to be gone into. In my opinion, the delay is not such as to disentitle the respondents from resorting to West Bengal Act II of 1948. 8. MR. Mukherjee further contends that it is not open to the respondents to acquire land since the petitioners perform daily seva puja of the deities installed in the disputed land in view of the proviso appended to Section 3 (1. I refrain from opining as to whether the land can be said to be in use for purpose of religious worship as contemplated under the aforesaid provision since the materials are not enough on file to warrant a finding in this behalf. Writ court will not enter into disputed question of fact either. There is no dispute that no order under Section 3 (1) as contemplated under sub-section 2 of Section 3 of Act II of 1948 has been served upon the petitioners. On this ground alone the proceeding is liable to be quashed. The impugned proceeding of acquisition therefore is quashed. This order will not however be a bar to the initiation of a proceeding afresh under the Act if the respondents think it expedient to do so. In initiating a proceeding, respondents may consider the objection raised before me with reference to section 3 (1) proviso of the Act. Application allowed.