Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 312 (CAL)

Sailendra Nath Pal v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-03-24

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, PRANAB KUMAR DEB

body2010
JUDGMENT Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J. 1. THE main issue raised by the appellants in this appeal is whether the order under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948) was duly served upon the said appellants in the manner prescribed under the said Act and the Rules framed there under and if not, what are the consequences thereafter. 2. THE appellants herein have challenged the steps taken by the respondent authorities for taking over possession of the land owned by the said appellants by filing a writ petition before this Court. It has been specifically urged on behalf of the appellants that the authorities of the State of West Bengal without following the provisions of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') sought to take over possession of the land in question of the said appellants. In the said writ petition, it has been specifically stated by the appellants herein that they came to know about the existence of any proceeding under the said Act only after receiving the letter dated July 17, 1986 written by the Secretary of the respondent No.4 the aforesaid notice, Secretary of the respondent No.4 asked the appellants to become members of the Nilachal Housing Co-operative Colony Estate Limited namely, the respondent No.4 herein and also threatened by the said letter that if they do not want to become the members of the society then it will not be possible to allow the appellants to use roads and drainage facilities. 3. ACCORDING to the appellants, after receiving the aforesaid letter they made an enquiry in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector and the local Municipality and thereafter, came to know about the notification dated 29th November, 1983, published in the Calcutta Gazette wherein it has been mentioned that the lands of the appellants have been requisitioned under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 by the person authorised under section 3(1A) of the said Act for public purpose and for creation of better living conditions in rural and urban areas by construction and reconstruction of dwelling places and for purposes connected therewith and incidental thereto as also for establishment of commercial and industrial estates vis East Calcutta Area Development Project. The aforesaid notification was issued under the provisions of sub-section (la) of 4 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. 4. THEREAFTER, a notice was also received in Form No. IV under section 5(3) of the said Act whereby the said appellants were informed that under section 4 of the said Act, Governor was pleased to acquire the land of the appellants for a public purpose. By the aforesaid notice, the appellants were also asked to be present at the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (now Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority) site office at Rajdanga Main Road at 12 noon on 21st July, 1987 in order to stake their claim for compensation and for taking part in the hearing under section 7(2) of the said Act. In the said writ petition filed at the instance of the appellants herein, specific prayers were made for quashing of the aforesaid notification published in the Calcutta Gazette on 29th November, 1983 with regard to the acquisition of the land in question of the appellants and also for quashing of the notice issued to the said appellants under section 5(3) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. The appellants also prayed for restraining the respondents from entering into the land of the said appellants and not to disturb the peaceful possession as regards the land in question. An interim order of injunction was also passed restraining the respondents from interfering with peaceful possession of the appellants of the land in question till the disposal of the writ petition. 5. THE aforesaid writ petition was ultimately dismissed by the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned single Judge and assailing the same, present appeal has been preferred. 6. THE main contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the steps taken by the respondent authorities with regard to requisition and subsequent acquisition of the land in question of the appellants cannot be sustained in the eye of law in view of non-compliance with the required provisions of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 and Rules framed there under. It has been specifically submitted on behalf of the appellants that no notice under section 3(1) of the said Act was served upon the appellants in the prescribed manner required under the said Act and the Rules framed there under and, therefore, there cannot be any valid requisition of the land in question. It has also been urged on behalf of the appellants that in absence of valid requisition, subsequent acquisition in respect of the land in question cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Referring to section 3 of the West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, Mr. Jayanta Mitra learned senior counsel representing the appellants submitted that no order under section 3(1) of the said Act was served in the prescribed manner on the owners of the land in question namely, the appellants herein. Section 3(1) and (2) of the said Act of 1948 are set out hereunder: "3. Power to requisition:- (I) If the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do for maintaining supplies and services essential to the 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 and urban areas, not being an industrial or other areas excluded by the State Government by a notification in this behalf, by the construction or re-construction of dwelling places in such areas (or for purposes connected therewith or incidental thereto), 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 or used by an educational or charitable institution shall be requisitioned under this section. (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)." 7. MR. Mitra also submitted that Rule 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Rules, 1948 prescribes the manner of service of the order passed under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act of 1948. MR. Mitra also submitted that Rule 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Rules, 1948 prescribes the manner of service of the order passed under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act of 1948. Rule 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Rules, 1948 is set out hereunder: "3. Manner of Service of Orders - An order under sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be served 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, (a) by delivering or tendering a copy thereof, endorsed either by the person authorised by the Act to make the order or by the Collector, to the person on whom the order is to be served or his agent, or (b) by fixing a copy thereof on the outer door of some conspicuous part of the house in which the person on whom the order is to be served ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, or (c) by sending the same to the on whom the order is to be by registered post acknowledgement due, or (d) by fixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous part of the land to which the order relates and also in some conspicuous place of the office of the Collector." 8. DR. Pal, learned senior counsel representing the respondent No. 4 submitted that the order under section 3(1) was duly served on the owner of the land by fixing a copy thereof in a conspicuous part of the land in question to which the order relates and in addition thereto, a copy of the same was also pasted in the notice board of the Collector, South 24-Parganas in compliance with the provisions of Rule 3(d) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Rules, 1948. The other contention raised by Dr. Pal is that new issue cannot be raised for the first time before the Division Bench. Dr. Pal submitted that in the writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no point was taken challenging the requisition made under section 3(1) of the Act of 1948 and/or the order passed under section 3(2) of the said Act of 1948. Dr. Dr. Pal submitted that in the writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no point was taken challenging the requisition made under section 3(1) of the Act of 1948 and/or the order passed under section 3(2) of the said Act of 1948. Dr. Pal further submitted that no prayer has also been made by the writ petitioners for quashing the order passed under section 3(2) of the said Act of 1948. 9. REFERRING to the judgment and order under appeal, Pal submitted that the learned single Judge himself has observed that the challenge in the writ petition is not in respect of the order under section 3(2) of the Act of 1948 but only in respect of the subsequent action dated 29th November, 1983 i.e. the day of the Gazette Notification under section 4(1) (a) of the Act of 1948. Dr. Pal specifically urged before this Court that the Division Bench being a Court of Appeal should not allow the writ petitioners to raise a point which was not taken in the averments, grounds or even in the prayer of the writ petition. 10. DR. Pal referred to and relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his aforesaid contentions: 1) (2003) 8 SCC 40 (V. K. Majotrav. Union of India and Ors.) [Paragraph 8] 2) (2005) 3 SCC 451 (Secretary to the Govt. andAnr. v. M. Senthil Kumar) [Paragraph 9] From the records we find that a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the writ petitioners in connection with the writ petition before the learned single Judge wherein the aforesaid issue was specifically urged. Paragraph 8 of the said supplementary affidavit is set out hereunder: "8. It is submitted that in the writ petition it has been specifically urged that no notice has been served upon the petitioners prior to the acquisition and as per the provisions of the Act the notice of acquisition and/or the notice under section 3 is to be served and the service of notice is a mandatory provision under section 3(2) of the said Act. In terms of the aforesaid section the notices are required to be served under Rule 3 and the same is required to be sent by registered post with acknowledgement due and in terms of Rule 3 (d) an order may be served by fixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place of the office of the Collector, the word 'and' used in the said Rule is conjunctive and not disjunctive and in this case nothing has been indicated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the notice under the aforesaid section has been served upon the petitioners, accordingly an impugned action of issuing notification for acquisition of the land of the petitioners is otherwise bad in law and is liable to be set aside." 11. THE respondent No.4 herein also filed an affidavit-in-opposition to the aforesaid supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the writ petitioners. In paragraph 7 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, respondent No.4 dealt with the contentions of the writ petitioners made in paragraph 8 of the supplementary affidavit as hereunder: "7. With regard to statements and/or allegations contained in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said supplementary affidavit allegations to the contrary and inconsistent with the record are denied and disputed. It is stated and submitted that the Rules and Provisions of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 was followed. It is further stated that even assuming but not admitting that there was any deviation in the process yet the same does not invalidate the acquisition when the property has vested with the State................................" 12. THE learned single Judge also very much considered the aforesaid issue as would be evident from the impugned judgment and order under appeal. The relevant portions from the said judgment of learned single Judge are set out hereunder: ".................On 27th April, 1978 a notice of requisition issued by the Collector under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948). The relevant portions from the said judgment of learned single Judge are set out hereunder: ".................On 27th April, 1978 a notice of requisition issued by the Collector under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948). On 15th May, 1978 notices under section 3(2) of the Act were served upon the owner by pasting the same at a nearby Free Primary School for not having found the owners in their houses and also by pasting in the Collector's office notice board under section 3(d) of Act 2 as above......................It is important hereunder to specify that one of the case of the petitioners is that there is no question of existence of Free Primary School. Therefore, the service of notice upon the owners by pasting there under cannot be said to be a pasting of notice in a conspicuous place for the purpose of having been notified. According to the Acquiring Authority the subject matter of challenge of the petitioners is not of a notice under section 3(2) of the State Act, 1948 but Gazette Publication under section 4(la) of the said Act which was published on 29th" November, 1983..............When the Requiring Authority has contended that the copy of the order was served upon the owners by fixing a copy thereto on a conspicuous part of the land in question and in the Collector's Office as well, it could not be disputed that Clause (d) of Rule 3 was not complete in to..........................It is not the case that the power of the requisition which were exercised by the respondents was mala fide and outside the purview of the Act. It is necessary to note hereunder that fact of the case is more or less similar with the above leaving aside two parts. One is whether the pasting of notice at the Free Primary School for not having found the owners in their houses can be construed as notice under section 3(2) of the Act................So far as the manner of service is concerned, it transpires that different mode of service have been prescribed under Rule 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Rules, 1948. Such Rule was framed following the scope and ambit of section 3 of the Act. Such Rule was framed following the scope and ambit of section 3 of the Act. Section 3(2) says that under sub-section (1) an order shall be served in the prescribed manner on the owner of the land and where the order relates to land in occupation by any occupier also upon such occupier. But modes of service have been prescribed under the Rule. Such modus say that it can be served by delivering or tendering copy, by fixing a copy in outer door of some conspicuous part of the house where the person is ordinarily residing or carrying on business or personally working for him, by sending a notice under registered post with acknowledgement due and by fixing a copy thereof in some part of the land in which the order relates and also in some conspicuous place of the office of the Collector. Therefore, the back drop of the service is to be understood on the basis of the given case. In the given case the Requiring Authority contended that one mode of service is pasting of the notice at the local Free Primary School and other mode of notice is pasting the same at the notice board of the office of the Collector. Hence, admittedly one notice on the part of the Requiring Authority was given..............." In the aforesaid circumstances, we are unable to accept that the aforesaid issues relating to the validity and/or legality of the order of requisition in respect of the land in question as well as the manner and mode of service of the requisition notice in prescribed manner under section 3(2) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 and also under Rule 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Rules, 1948 were not raised on behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners before the learned single Judge nor the said learned Judge had any occasion to consider the same. 13. THE objections raised by Dr. Pal in this regard are, therefore, not factually correct and hence, the same are rejected. 14. DR. 13. THE objections raised by Dr. Pal in this regard are, therefore, not factually correct and hence, the same are rejected. 14. DR. Pal, learned senior counsel representing the respondent No. 4 submitted that when a large plot of land measuring about 107.90 acres had been requisitioned and hardly there was any house, the report of the acquiring authority that the order under section 3(2) of the said Act of 1948 has been served in accordance with Rule 3(d) of the Rules, 1998 both by pasting a copy of the order in the Collector's office notice board and another one in the conspicuous place of the land which is the Free Primary School as the owners of the land were not available, has to be accepted as no challenge was thrown against the order under section 3(2) of the said Act of 1948. It has also been submitted on behalf of the respondent No.4 that the report of the acquiring authority regarding the service of the order is to be accepted by the Court since no challenge was raised in this regard by the appellants in the writ petition. Dr. Pal relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Samarendra Nath Paul and Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 2995 (paragraph 8). 15. THE learned senior counsel of the respondent No.4 also relied on another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal Housing Board v. Bhanwar Lal Mundhra and Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 2989 (paragraph 10). 16. THE decision cited by Dr. Pal in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Samarendra Nath Pal and Ors., (supra) is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the present case since in the aforesaid decision, Supreme Court specifically pointed out that the record of the State-respondents was examined by the learned single Judge and the affidavit filed by the State respondents was on the basis of the record maintained by them as a result whereof, the Division Bench had no occasion to held that no notice was admittedly, affixed in some conspicuous place in the office of the Collector. On the basis of the aforesaid affidavit filed by the State-respondents, the Supreme Court accepted that the order under section 3(1) was served according to Rule 3(d) of the Rules and the observation of the Division Bench was set aside. In this case, an affidavit was also filed on behalf of the State disclosing the records with regard to service of notice in connection with the requisition of the land in question. From the said affidavit it is clearly evident that the notice was not served by pasting a copy thereof in some conspicuous part of the land in question to which the order relates. 17. THE other decision cited by Dr. Pal in the case of West Bengal Housing Board v. Bhanwar Lal Mundhra and Ors. (supra) has also no manner of application in the facts of the present case as in the aforesaid decision it was specifically mentioned that the Land Acquisition Officer filed an affidavit mentioning that the order requisitioning the land was duly served under section 3(2) of the Act upon all the owners by affixing .thereof on the conspicuous part of land and also in the Collector's office in terms of Rule 3(d) of the Rules. Therefore, the Supreme Court was pleased to hold that in such circumstances no adverse presumption could be raised regarding the validity of the service by affixation. 18. IN the instant case, on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector, 24- Parganas (South), an affidavit has been filed wherein it has been specifically disclosed that the notice for requisition was served by pasting the same in a conspicuous place which was situated nearby the subject, land and not in some conspicuous part of the land in terms of Rule 3(d) of the said Rules, 1948. Therefore, the aforesaid decisions cited by Dr. Pal cannot be of any assistance and/or relied upon for deciding the issues raised in the present case. 19. MR. Mitra learned senior counsel representing the appellants urged before this Court that in absence of proper requisition of the land in question, subsequent steps to acquire the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. MR. Mitra referred to and relied on the following decisions in support of his aforesaid contention: 1) 1983 (1) CLJ 371 [Tarak Nath Sen and Ors. MR. Mitra referred to and relied on the following decisions in support of his aforesaid contention: 1) 1983 (1) CLJ 371 [Tarak Nath Sen and Ors. v. First Land Acquisition Collector and Ors.] 2) 1989 (1) CLJ 214 [Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza v. Union of India and Ors. ] 3) 1992 (1) CLJ 222 [M/s. Bhinashar Finance (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.\ 20. IN the case of Tarak Nath Sen and Ors. v. First Land Acquisition Collector and Ors., reported in 1983 (1) CLJ 371, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as His Lordship then was) considered the effect of non-service of the requisition order made under section 3(1) of the said Act upon the owner and held: "4. The challenge to the impugned order of requisition dated 22nd November, 1976 is mainly based on two grounds. It has been urged that no notice was given to the petitioners, who were the owners of the premises in question. Sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act makes service of the notice in the prescribed manner oh the owner mandatory and where the order of requisition relates to land in occupation of an occupier not being the owner of the land also on such occupier. Sub-section (2) of section 3 of the said Act, therefore, makes it manifest that an order of requisition must be served in any event on the owner and in addition requires that it should also be served on the occupier if there is any occupier who is not the owner of the premises in question...................................." In the case of Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza v. The Union of India and Ors., reported in 1989 (1) CLJ 214 , Justice Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee speaking for the Bench, observed: "14....................Accordingly, I hold that in the instant case, there was non-service of notice upon the occupiers who were entitled to get a notice as occupier and as such non-service of notice upon the petitioner amounts to violation to the provisions of section 3(2) of the said Act. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. The order of requisition dated 9th November, 1983 which is Annexure 'B' is quashed. Rule is made absolute............" 21. THIS Court in the case of M/s. Bhinashar Finance (P) Ltd. and Anr. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. The order of requisition dated 9th November, 1983 which is Annexure 'B' is quashed. Rule is made absolute............" 21. THIS Court in the case of M/s. Bhinashar Finance (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in 1992 (1) CLJ 222 held as hereunder: "6.......................................When the legislature makes it clear that order under section 3( 1) 'Shall be served in the prescribed manner in 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'. Considering the scheme of the act such provision is a mandatory and that order under section 3(1} of the said Act could only be effective only on service as provided under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the said Act..................." 22. MR. Nath, learned counsel representing the State- respondents submitted that the notice was duly served upon the owners of the land in question in compliance with the provisions of Act II of 1948. MR. Nath further submitted that the learned single Judge has rightly approved the steps taken by the Collector concerned with regard to service of notice upon the owners of the land and there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the mode and manner of service of notice. A supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector, 24-Parganas (South) before this Court at the time of hearing of the appeal wherein the mode and manner of service of notice under section 3(1) of the said Act of 1948 have been specifically narrated. The relevant paragraph of the said supplementary affidavit is set out hereunder: "5.1 say from records that on 29.04.1978 a notice for requisition of land was issued by the Collector concerned under section 3(1) of said Act-II of 1948 and said notice was served upon all owners of the land including the writ petitioners in accordance with the provisions of Act and Rules. The writ petitioners were not found at their place after searching and therefore, the said notice was served by pasting in a conspicuous place at local Free Primary School at Kasba which was situated nearby the subject land and a copy of said notice was also pasted on the office notice board of the Collector, South 24-Parganas as required under rule 3(d) of the said Act. Purpose of requisition was clearly stated in the said notice. Xerox copy of said notice and the service return are annexed hereto and collectively marked as annexure 'R-1' 23. THEREFORE, in the aforesaid affidavit it has been categorically admitted by the respondent Collector that the notice was pasted in a conspicuous place at local Free Primary School at Kasba, which was situated nearby the subject land. 24. THE learned single Judge while, considering the aforesaid issue relating to the manner of service of notice has specifically observed: ".....................In the given case the Requiring Authority contended that one mode of service is pasting of the notice at the local Free Primary School and other mode of notice is pasting the same at the notice board of the office of the Collector. Hence, admittedly one notice on the part of the Requiring Authority was given........................" In, the aforesaid circumstances, it is established that no copy of the order under section 3(1) of the said Act was affixed in any conspicuous part of the land to which the impugned order relates since the State of West Bengal has admitted specifically in the affidavit filed before this Court that the notice for requisition of the land in question was served by pasting in a conspicuous place at local Free Primary School at Kasba which was situated nearby the subject land. 25. THEREFORE, even if a copy of the said order was pasted on the office notice board of the Collector, South 24-Parganas, same could not be said to be in compliance with Rule 3(d) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Rules, 1948 since the said Rules specifically provide that the order under section 3(1) should be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous part of the land to which the order relates and also in some conspicuous place of the office of the Collector. 26. 26. IN the present case, by pasting a copy of the order under section 3(1) of Act II of 1948 at the local Free Primary School at Kasba, which is admittedly not situated on the subject land, the respondent authorities did not comply with the statutory obligation with regard to the service of the order under section 3( 1) of the said Act on the owner of the land upon complying with the requirements of Rule 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Rules, 1948. Thus, we are convinced that in the instant case, the provisions of section 3(2) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act. 1948 and Rule 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Rules, 1948 have not been complied with. 27. IN the aforesaid circumstances, the order of requisition passed in respect of the land in question cannot be held to be valid for not complying with the required provisions of section 3(2) of the said Act of 1948 and Rule 3 of the said Rules, 1948. Therefore, all subsequent steps taken for acquisition of the land in question cannot be held also to be valid. 28. UNDER section 4 of the said Act there could be acquisition of a land, which has been properly requisitioned under section 3. Section 4(1)(a) empowers the State Government to acquire any land, which has been requisitioned under section 3 by publishing a notice in the official Gazette that such land was required for a public purpose referred to in section 3(1). Thus, the power to acquire the land can only be exercised provided it has been properly requisitioned under section 3 of the said Act. If the land has not been properly requisitioned, such land cannot be acquired by the State Government under section 4 of the said Act. As mentioned hereinbefore, there has been no proper requisition of the land, inasmuch as the order of requisition under section 3(1) has not been properly served in the prescribed manner on the appellants, who are the owners of the land and are also in possession thereof. In such circumstances, the entire process undertaken by the State Government to requisition the said land and subsequently, to acquire the same is wholly illegal, not effective and liable to be declared null and void. 29. In such circumstances, the entire process undertaken by the State Government to requisition the said land and subsequently, to acquire the same is wholly illegal, not effective and liable to be declared null and void. 29. ONE other contention of the respondent No.4 is that there was delay on the part of the writ petitioners in moving the Writ Court by filing the writ petition. The learned single Judge also held against the appellants/writ petitioners on the aforesaid ground of inordinate delay. 30. MR. Mitra, learned senior counsel of the appellants submitted that the appellants/writ petitioners got the information about the, purported order of requisition only on 17th July, 1987 from the letter of the Secretary of the respondent No. 4 and filed a writ petition on 28th September, 1988 i.e. within 1 years from the date of knowledge. According to MR. Mitra, the writ petition was filed within a reasonable period. We are also not prepared to accept that there was really any unexplained inordinate delay on the part of the writ petitioners in filing the writ petition. 31. THIS Court cannot assume that the appellants/writ petitioners were not at all serious about their rights in respect of their valuable property and in spite of their knowledge with regard to the requisition and/or acquisition of the said property remained idle for a considerable period. 32. FROM the records we, however, find that the appellants/writ petitioners smelt a rat from the letter of the Secretary of the respondent No.4 and immediately thereafter made enquiries in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector and also in the neighbouring municipal office wherefrom the said writ petitioners came to know about the issuance of the notification by which the authorities sought to acquire the land of the appellants. The aforesaid fact was also recorded in the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned single Judge. We are, therefore, not prepared to reject the valid claims of the appellants/writ petitioners on the ground of inordinate delay when we find that there was no delay at all on the part of the said appellants/writ petitioners to approach the Writ Court in the facts of the present case. 33. We are, therefore, not prepared to reject the valid claims of the appellants/writ petitioners on the ground of inordinate delay when we find that there was no delay at all on the part of the said appellants/writ petitioners to approach the Writ Court in the facts of the present case. 33. FOR the reasons discussed hereinabove, we hold that the order under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 was never served on the owner of the land in prescribed manner since no notice under section 3(2) of the said Act was served in compliance with the prescribed mode as specifically mentioned in Rule 3(d) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Rules, 1948 and, therefore, the requisition of the land of the writ petitioners cannot be held to be valid. Since the requisition of the property in the instant case is invalid, subsequent acquisition thereof also cannot be sustained as the acquisition under section 4 of the Act can be legally done if the property has been properly requisitioned. Furthermore, the possession of the land has not yet been taken by the State-respondents and the same is still with the writ petitioners/ appellants. 34. FOR the aforementioned reasons, the order of requisition as well as the order of acquisition in respect of the property in question of the appellants/writ petitioners cannot be sustained and the same are, therefore, set aside for the ends of justice. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. 35. THIS appeal thus stands allowed. There will be, however, ho order as to costs. Let Xerox copies of this judgment duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar of this Court be supplied to the parties herein on undertaking to apply for the certified copy of the same immediately. Appeal allowed.