JUDGMENT 1. THE cross objection being APO 104 of 2009 is treated as on day's list as it is not appearing in the list and the cross objector is present. THE appeal is being heard. 2. BOTH the appeal and the cross objection had been directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship had been pleased to dismiss the writ petition and also connected application. The connected application filed for payment of rent compensation was not dismissed but disposed of without specific order, by the learned Trial Judge. However, liberty was given to raise the question of rent compensation before the Rent Collector and/or in any other Forum in accordance with law. At the very outset we hold that dismissal of the application with regard to the payment of rent compensation is absolutely justified as the issue involved in the present writ petition is whether the Land Acquisition Collector pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge of 1his Court had decided the objection raised in their letters dated 31st August, 1989 and 9th November, 1989 being Annexures B and C to the earlier writ petition. 3. THE facts for which the present appeal and the cross objection filed are briefly stated hereunder. 4. THE petitioner is the owner of a building of premises No. 2, Garstin Place, Kolkata-1 which consists of six floors including ground floor. THE First Land Acquisition Collector requisitioned a part of the said premises, the description of which has fully been given in the writ petition. This requisition continued for a long time and hence the petitioner filed a writ petition in the year 1986 being Matter No. 2407 of 1986 questioning continuation of the requisition. THE said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court by a judgment and order dated 28th July, 1988 and thereby His Lordship was pleased to pass the following order:- "Since it was a public purpose and as it appears that the respondents are required to keep the office there for a public purpose it would not be proper to declare that the said order of requisition passed long back was void and illegal. Accordingly in the circumstances of the case after hearing the learned Counsel on either side I feel that the foltowing would be proper order to be made in the instant case:- (1) That the orders of requisition in respect of 1253 sq.ft. on the northern portion of the first floor, 1047 sq.ft. on the northern portion of the third floor and 1370 sq.ft. on the southern portion of the third floor of the said premises No. 2, Garstin Place, Calcutta upheld but the continuance of the requisition of the premises in question is permitted subject to the condition mentioned hereinafter. (2) THE respondents are directed to take steps to acquire the said portion of the premises in question under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within a period of one year from today, if the Government wants to continue the use of the premises for the purpose for which it was requisitioned. If however, the Government decides not to acquire the said portion of the said premises under the Land Acquisition Act, the Government shall hand over to the owner the possession of the said premises in question and that the order of requisition shall stand cancelled and set aside after a lapse of one year from today." In this order the First Land Acquisition Collector was asked to decide the question who was entitled to get rent compensation as a whole or a part thereof upon hearing the parties and upon being satisfied about the right tide and interest of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 and that after such determination the Special Officer appointed by this Court shall hand over the amount already collected by him pursuant to the order of the Court to the persons who would be determined as entitled to get such rent compensation. Such determination has to be made by the First Land Acquisition Collector within four months from today and that further sums, if any, are payable by the respondents to such persons the same shall also be paid by the respondents. The Special Officer shall be entitled to remuneration for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The Special Officer will pay his clerk's remuneration assessed at Rs. 1,000/- only. 5. IT is recorded that it is an admitted position that neither parties preferred any appeal against the aforesaid order. 6. The Special Officer shall be entitled to remuneration for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The Special Officer will pay his clerk's remuneration assessed at Rs. 1,000/- only. 5. IT is recorded that it is an admitted position that neither parties preferred any appeal against the aforesaid order. 6. THEREAFTER pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order the First Land Acquisition Collector started acquisition proceedings of the said requisitioned premises. So notice under Section 4 was issued inviting objections. The objection under Section 5 of the said Act of 1894 was filed. It appears from the records that in the objections a specific point was taken that entire premises should be acquired instead a part acquisition. Thereafter under Section 6 the notification was issued on receipt of the objections. It is not clear from the records whether the objections under Section 5A were disposed of dealing with the question raised in the objections or not ? 7. AFTER the issuance of the said notice making declaration under Section 6, the petitioner filed the subsequent writ petition challenging the said declaration under Section 6 issued and the said writ petition being W.P. No. 953 of 1990 came up for hearing before His Lordship the Hon'ble Justice P.C. Ghose on 15th May, 2001. His Lordship was pleased to dispose of the writ petition with the following order:- "The applications being Annexures B and C to the petition filed by the petitioner requesting the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in respect of acquiring 1he premises in question be considered and disposed of by the First Land Acquisition Collector within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving hearing to the petitioner and shall pass a reasoned order." 8. IN purported compliance of the said order of Justice Ghose the First Land Acquisition Collector passed an order dated 12th June, 2001 and by this Order the First Land Acquisition Collector held that issue of non-service of notice was incorrect as notice was issued and objection was filed and such objection was dealt with and thereafter notification under Section 6 was issued. Challenging the above speaking order of the First Land Acquisition Collector the writ petition being W.P. 2305 of 2001 was filed and on which the impugned judgment and order was passed. 9. Challenging the above speaking order of the First Land Acquisition Collector the writ petition being W.P. 2305 of 2001 was filed and on which the impugned judgment and order was passed. 9. THE grievance in the writ petition appears to be objection under Section 5A of the Act-I of 1894 that the whole of the premises should be acquired instead of part acquisition, as envisaged under Section 49 and Section 49A of the said Act was not at all discussed and dealt with. It is also the grievance of the writ petitioner that the first respondent has erroneously held that this point is deemed, to have been decided and no further decision is required although specific order in this regard was passed by Justice Ghose. THE learned Trial Judge was not convinced with the contention of the writ petitioner and it was held by the learned Trial Judge that the question as regard acquisition of premises in its entirety as envisaged under Sections 49 and 49A is hit by the principles of res judicata. At the time of hearing of the second writ petition this point could have been raised. It was also held that the contention and objection with regard to Section 49A of the said Act is not tenable as at the time when objection was raised the said Section was not in the statute book and it came into force on 14th February, 1990. 10. FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid decision the present appeal has been filed and the cross objection has been filed against the observation of the Hon'ble Trial Judge that order dated 28th July, 1988 passed by Justice B. P. Banerjee does not prevent and preclude the writ petitioner from' contending the right under Section 49. None appears for the First Land Acquisition Collector. Mr. Ashoke Banerjee, learned senior Advocate being assisted by Mr. lyasin Ali, Mr. Arijit Bardhan and Mr. Debanik Banerjee, appears in support of the appellant, and contends that the learned Trial Judge has completely misdirected not only on the fact but also on the law as the First Land Acquisition Collector did not deal with the question of the part acquisition and whole acquisition although raised. lyasin Ali, Mr. Arijit Bardhan and Mr. Debanik Banerjee, appears in support of the appellant, and contends that the learned Trial Judge has completely misdirected not only on the fact but also on the law as the First Land Acquisition Collector did not deal with the question of the part acquisition and whole acquisition although raised. He submits that the question of res judicata on this issue cannot and does not arise as His Lordship Justice Ghose did not decide that question and was pleased to leave the entire matter for decision of the First Land Acquisition Collector, on the contention in the Annexures B and C. We find some force in his argument In our view the learned Trial Judge has not correctly applied the position of law nor the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata, for, there must be a decision to attract the principle of res judicata either express or constructive and if no decision is rendered the question of res judicata does not arise. In this case nothing has been decided by the Hon'ble Justice Ghosh how this principle would be made applicable is not understood by us. Now coming to the question whether part and full acquisition could be raised in view of the insertion of Section 49A in February, 1990 as the objection was raised as available under Section 49A, before it was inserted. We think this question needs some enquiry. Mr. Aloke Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation submits that when Section 6 notification has been issued dealing with the objection raised therein it is no longer open for the Collector to decide afresh. He submits that order of justice Ghose cannot empower the First Land Acquisition Collector to reopen the issue as this question is to take place with regard to the part premises in terms of the order of Justice B. P. Banerjee. This acquisition has not been initiated at the instance of the Land Acquisition Collector in usual course but in reality it is done in carrying out mandate of the Court. Thus there is no scope for application of provisions under Sections 49 and 49A of the said Act in this matter. 11. WE have carefully gone through the ordering portion of Justice Banerjee. Thus there is no scope for application of provisions under Sections 49 and 49A of the said Act in this matter. 11. WE have carefully gone through the ordering portion of Justice Banerjee. His Lordship has very kindly given an opportunity to the First Land Acquisition Collector to acquire the property already requisitioned, if so advised, and if not, premises would be released from requisition. 12. IN our view one can take advantage of the aforesaid ordering portion of Justice Banerjee. His Lordship no where said that entire premises would not be acquired. It was said that part premises which was requisitioned should be acquired, and that does not mean the owner will loose all its right under law. The said order has to be read meaningfully and objection must be dealt with in compliance of the provision of the Land Acquisition Act and not otherwise. Moreover, at that point of time provisions of Sections 49 and 49A were not in the statute and it was incorporated later on as rightly noted by the Hon'ble Trial Judge. Therefore, the right under Section 49 was created by the Legislature much later. It appears the contentions the petitioner raised knowingly or unknowingly, relate to acquisition of the premises as a whole as contemplated under Section 49A and also Section 49. The State Government though has issued notice under Section 6 which gives right of presumption of disposal of the objection raised by the petitioner, however, when the matter was before the Court and it was asking the Government to consider objection, it was the duty of the Government to deal with the same. It was not done here. 13. HIS Lordship Justice Ghose in spite of notice under Section 6 having been issued, upon hearing directed the First Land Acquisition Collector to consider the contention raised in Annexures B and C. Hence we think that the consideration should have been done afresh regardless of the fact of past dealing of.the objection. It appears from the impugned order of the Collector he has dealt with the point of service of notice, and we think this decision is absolutely correct. Objection with regard to the notice has been rejected by the Collector as well as the learned Trial Judge. We feel that they have done rightly. We affirm this portion of their findings. 14. WE now examine carefully the other aspect of matter. Objection with regard to the notice has been rejected by the Collector as well as the learned Trial Judge. We feel that they have done rightly. We affirm this portion of their findings. 14. WE now examine carefully the other aspect of matter. WE do not find that the First Land Acquisition Collector has made any attempt to touch the question of validity of the part acquisition or requirement of full acquisition as requested by the petitioner in their objection. In cross objection Mr. Ghosh tried to convince us that it was not simply necessary as when objection was raised this right was not in the statute. It is true fact that when Justice Ghose passed order for deciding the question in accordance with law by that time this right under Section 49A of the Statute Book has been created. Therefore, the decision in accordance with law means whatever law is available on the date when fresh decision is to be taken. In our considered view, the question as required to be dealt with under Section 49A and also Section 49 should have been specifically dealt with as Justice Ghose's order was that order should be speaking one and we do not find a single word as to why the contention under Sections 49 and 49A of the said Act has been rejected. We are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel in this regard that it is not open for the writ petitioner to reopen the aforesaid issue. We accordingly modify the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Trial Judge, and set aside the order of the first land acquisition collector which was impugned before the learned Trial Judge and direct the first land acquisition collector to decide the matter afresh within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order, the issues under Sections 49 and 49A of L.A. Act, 1894. 15. THE aforesaid observation recorded by us is for the decision of this matter and should not be construed an expression of final opinion of the Court. 16. THE learned Trial Judge in our view has recorded correctly that at the time of passing of the order of Justice Banerjee there was no occasion or scope for raising the point of part acquisition as at that point of time Section 49A was not in the Statute. 16. THE learned Trial Judge in our view has recorded correctly that at the time of passing of the order of Justice Banerjee there was no occasion or scope for raising the point of part acquisition as at that point of time Section 49A was not in the Statute. But in the changed circumstances as recorded above we think these points need to be considered. We, therefore, dismiss the cross-objection. Thus the appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs with the aforesaid observation. 17. THE connected application is dismissed as we feel that this application has got no nexus with the order in appeal. However, liberty is given to initiate the appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. More so, there is an observation and order of Justice B.P. Banerjee. So, in our considered opinion we can not decide this issue at this juncture.