S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) -THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27. 8. 98 passed by a learned single Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the private respondent herein, the following reliefs were claimed :- (A)"a. A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from giving effect or further effect to the impugned order of requisition and acquisitiion of the petitioners land in plot No. 2545 of Mouza-Kasba passed, if any, and from giving effect further effect to the impugned Memo. No. 125/dd (C)/surad/cmda dated the 1st April, 1996 refusing for granting 'no Objection Certificate' for sale of the said property as the said land which is in exclusive possession of the petitioners as the same was not included in the Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary, January 14, 1988 as requisitioned for the East Calcutta Area Development Project (annexures 'c' and 'd' to this petition), (B) A Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the respondent authorities, their agents and subordinates from interfering with the possession of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever in respect of their raiyati land recorded as X Sali in respect of plot No. 2545 of Khatian No. 633, Mouza-Kasba, District-South 24-Pgs as mentioned in the record-of-right 'annexures 'a' and 'a-1' to this petition. (C) A Direction to the respondents authorities to supply and furnish a 'no Objectin Certificate' of the petitioners in respect of the said land of Plot No. 2545, Khatian No. 633, Mouza-Kasba, J. L. No. 13, Police Station-Kasba, District South 24-Pgs. for seting some portion of the said property and for construction of their residential houses thereto in accordance with law; (D) A writ of or in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the respondents to certify and transmit the records of the proceeding to this Hon'ble Court so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing, cancelling, rescinding and seting aside the impugned order of requisition and acquisition of the petitioners raiyati land without giving them any opportunity of being heard and also not granting any 'no Objection Certificate' for selling the said land as mentioned in annexure 'c' to this petitions. (E) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction, (F) Costs of and incidental thereto; (G) Ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents, their agents and sub-ordinates from giving effect further effect to the impugned exparte order of requisition and acquisition passed if any, and from giving effect to the impugned Memo. No. 125/4. 70/dd (C)/surad/cmda dated 1st April, 1996 issued by the Deputy Director (C) SURAD (annexure 'c') as well as from interfering with the possession of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever in respect of their raiyati land in plot No. 2545, Khatian No. 633, Mouza-Kasba, J. L. No. 13, Police Station-Kasba. District. South 24-Pgs. by allowing the petitioners to enjoy the said property peacefully;" was allowed. ( 2 ) THE fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. One Bhuban Mohini Debi was the predecessor in interest of the writ petitioners. The land in question was recorded as a Sali land. The said Bhuban Mohini Debi died leaving behind Nanigopal Ghoshal, Niranjan Ghosal, Nirode Gopal Ghoshal and Surendra Nath Ghoshal. In the revisional settlement records of rights the name of Bhuban Mohini Debi was recorded. ( 3 ) THIS said brothers died on 14. 10. 57, 1. 8. 65, 7. 2. 57 and 6. 4. 73. Allegedly the writ petitioners inherited the properties. ( 4 ) THE lands in question allegedly were requisitioned by the State of West Bengal at the instance of Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority in terms of provisions of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter for the sake of breavity referred to as the said Act. ). The said requisition has been made in year 1979 and allegedly upon service of notice possession thereto had been taken on 16. 5. 79. Before the learned trial Judge no affidavit-in-opposition had been filed on behalf of the State. The State also did not produce the records of the case. However, the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority had filed an affidavit-in-opposition before the learned trial Judge. The only question raised was as to whether the notices as has required under Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the said Act had been served or not. The State also did not produce the records of the case. However, the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority had filed an affidavit-in-opposition before the learned trial Judge. The only question raised was as to whether the notices as has required under Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the said Act had been served or not. ( 5 ) HAVING satisfied himself that the requirements of the said Rule had not been complied with the learned trial Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the said requisition was bad for two reasons, firstly for violation of mandatory provisions of section 3 (2) of the said Act read with Rule 3 and secondly the purpose for which the disputed land was initially requisitioned was a purpose of permanent and perennial character. ( 6 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority against the said order. When the matter was taken up for hearing, keeping in view the fact that neither any records been produced by the State nor any Affidavit-in-Opposition had been filed, this court, by an order dated 17. 2. 99 directed :-"one of the questions which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether due notices in terms of the provisions of the land Acquisition Act had been served upon the writ-petitioners-respondents. Although such records had not been produced before the learned trial Judge, as prayed for by Mr. Mallick, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents, we give another opportunity to the State-respondents to produce the records before this court. Let such records be produced before this court on 22nd February, 1999 at 11. 00 A. M. , on which date it would be open to the learned counsel for the parties to take inspection thereof. The learned counsel for the parties may file their written short notes of argument on the basis of such records." ( 7 ) THEREAFTER, the State not only produced the records but also had filed an affidavit-in-opposition and supplementary affidavit to which affidavit-in-reply had been filed on behalf of the writ petitioners. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the parties have addressed us at great length. The learned counsel for the parties also took us through the entire records produced before us. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the parties have addressed us at great length. The learned counsel for the parties also took us through the entire records produced before us. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the writ petitoner/respondent had made an attempt to show that the purported service of notice allegedly effected on the owner of the lands is no service in the eye of law. ( 10 ) MR. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has further pointed out infirmities not only in the matter of non-observance of the requirements of mandatory provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules but also has drawn our attention to various irregularities in the matter of alleged payment of compensation. ( 11 ) MR. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Mallick, learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, had drawn this court's attention to the fact that compensation money had been paid to one Sankar Kumar Ghoshal on the basis of a power of Attorney executed by the writ petitioners. Our attention has further been drawn to the fact that even a reference in terms of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made and the said reference case has also been disposed of. ( 12 ) MR. Mukherjee, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent in reply has submitted and produced various documents before us to show that even the alleged constituted Attorney has been referred to as Sankar Ghosh by the Land Acquisition Collector and not as Sankar Ghoshal. ( 13 ) HAVING considered the matter in its entirety, we are of the opinion that the writ application involved a disputed and complicated question of fact. We may refer to the notice demanding justice dated 1. 7. 96 as contained in annexure "l" to the writ application; from a perusal whereof it appears that the petitioners therein had raised a specific contention that they had put their signature on the blank non-judicial stamp papers in favour of the said Sankar Ghoshal allegedly with good faith and bona-fide belief, who was a neighbour of their deceased father, that he would take all steps to protect and preserve their property. From a perusal of the said notice demanding justice it further transpires that the petitioners had contended therein that the said Sankar Ghoshal with a malafide and ulterior motive illegally taking advantage of the signatures of the writ petitioners on the blank stamp papers forged the documents fraudulently for withdrawing the compensation amount in terms of an award for acquisition of the said lands in collusion with the concerned officers of the Land Acquisition Department, Alipore. ( 14 ) IT had further been alleged:"i further request you to take appropriate legal step against said Sankar Ghoshal and the officers of the Land Acquisition Department, Alipore, South 24-Paraganas, who with a malafide and ulterior motive have misappropriated the public fund by withdrawing the allotted money as compensation of the land of my said clients by practising fraud and the said matter may be sent to the CID and DIG Bhabani Bawan, to investigate the matter and to take penal action against the miscreants in accordance with law. I further state that the alleged forged documents manufactured by the said Sankar Ghoshal in the name of my said clients must be treated as withdrawn, cancel, rescind and set aside and the said Sankar Ghoshal must be restrained from proceeding any further to withdraw further compensation money from the Land Acquisition Department in respect of the land of my said clients on the basis of the said forged documents and of any compensation money be permitted to withdraw by the said Sankar Ghoshal, the Land Acquisition Department including the officers concerned will be liable for the same". ( 15 ) CURIOUSLY enough even in the writ application the CID and DIG, West Bengal, had been impleaded as a party respondents. ( 16 ) THE submission of Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents to the effect that on perusal of the records produced before this court by the State it appears that either forgery has been comitted or incorrect report has been submitted by the process server and other irregulaties have been committed, cannot in our opinion be gone into this writ application. The fact remains that requisition had been made. The fact remains that the possession of the lands in question had been taken and the compensation amount in respect thereof had been paid. Even a reference in terms of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has been made. The fact remains that requisition had been made. The fact remains that the possession of the lands in question had been taken and the compensation amount in respect thereof had been paid. Even a reference in terms of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has been made. Furthermore before us documents have been produced by the writ petitioners/respondents showing that an application has been filed before the Land Acquisition Judge for recalling of his order passed in the aforementioned reference case alleging that no reference was made at their instance. ( 17 ) IN the premises aforementioned three questions arise for our consideration. (1) whether a writ court can enter into such a disputed question of fact? (2)whether in view of the fact that the amount of compensation for requisition and acquisition of the lands in question had been withdrawn on behalf of the writ petitioners by the said Sankar Ghoshal, this writ application was maintainable? (3)whether in any event, the learned trial Judge ought to have exercised his discretionary writ jurisdiction in entertaining the writ application keeping in view the fact that the requisition had been made in the year 1989 whereas the writ application had been filed in the year 1997? ( 18 ) ALL these questions, in our considered view, must be answered against the writ petitioners. ( 19 ) THE question as to whether the aforementioned Sankar Ghoshal had converted a blank stamp paper signed by the writ petitioners into a power of Attorney fraudulently and used the same for his own personal gain is essentially a question of fact. In order to determine the said question of fact, parties have to adduce evidences before a competent court of law. The aforementioned Sankar Ghoshal is also not a party in the writ application. The allegations made by the writ petitioners in the writ application against the said Shankar Ghosal and others and particularly the alegations made in the notice dated 1. 7. 96 demanding justice could not have been gone into by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The allegations made by the writ petitioners in the writ application against the said Shankar Ghosal and others and particularly the alegations made in the notice dated 1. 7. 96 demanding justice could not have been gone into by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 20 ) SO far as the second question is concerned, we are of the opinion that as this court is not in a position to adjudicate upon the first question, the same also cannot be gone into in view of the fact that once it is found that the amount of compensation had been received by a person who was authorised to do so by the writ petitioners, they would be deemed to have waived their right to question the legality or validity of the order of requisition. There cannot be any doubt that the right to property is protected under Article 300a of the Constitution of India. ( 21 ) THE main grievance of the writ petitioners primarily is against the said Sankar Ghoshal. If the said Sankar Ghoshal has committed act of forgery either by himself or in collusion with the officers of the State, the same can be a subject-matter of a civil proceeding and/or criminal proceeding. By no stretch of imagination the same can be the subject matter of Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, a person who is aware of his right, may waive the same. The writ petitioners as is evident from the aforementioned notice dated 1. 7. 96 were aware of the fact that the payment of compensation on their behalf had been received by the aforementioned Sankar Ghoshal and for that purpose alone the respondent No. 11 had been impleaded as a party in the writ application. ( 22 ) FURTHERMORE, the question as to whether the reference was actually made by the writ petitioner or by the Sankar Ghoshal on their behalf relying on or on the basis of the said power of Attorney is again essentially a question of fact. The writ petitioners admittedly filed an application for recalling of the said order. The said question, therefore, would fall for determination by the Land Acquisition Judge. It is a well known principle of law that the writ court does not encourage continuation of two proceedings simultaneously. The writ petitioners admittedly filed an application for recalling of the said order. The said question, therefore, would fall for determination by the Land Acquisition Judge. It is a well known principle of law that the writ court does not encourage continuation of two proceedings simultaneously. Reference in this connection may be to the case reported in 1977 (1) SCC 1 . ( 23 ) FURTHERMORE, if the writ petitioners had put their signatures on blank stamp papers as far back as in the year 1979 and further if they were aware of the fact that the amount of compensation had been withdrawn in the year 1993, there is absolutely no reason as to why they had waited for a period of 4 years for filing of the writ application. The writ application should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. ( 24 ) IN this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the questions which have been raised before us being essentially a question of fact cannot be gone into the writ application. ( 25 ) IN this view of the matter, we have no other option but to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and dismiss the writ application with liberty to the writ petitioners to avail alternative remedy. Before parting with this matter, we make it clear that we have not gone into the question of validity of the requisition and acquisition of the lands in question. The prayer for stay of operation of this is considered and rejected. T. Chatterjee, J.-I agree. Appeal allowed.