JUDGMENT : SANKAR ACHARYYA, J. This writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioners on 06.01.2003 with prayers for commanding the respondents to release compensation in favour of the petitioners for acquisition of the .35 acres land of plot No. 41/446 of mouja-paranchawk in the district of Purba Medinipore and for commanding respondent No. 2 to complete the hearing for grant of compensation on the basis of notice dated 20.08.2001 after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioners and to pass appropriate order for release of compensation in respect of the land in question as per present market value and other related prayers for payment of compensation to petitioners against acquisition of land. 2. Petitioners’ case in a nutshell is that they purchased the land in question by virtue of two deeds of sale dated 25.07.1997. After some legal battles said land has been recorded in records of rights in their names. Said records of rights have been marked annexure P- 1 of writ application. Said land was requisitioned by added respondent No. 7 and acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Haldia for Petro Chemicals Complex at Haldia for which petitioners are entitled to get compensation with interest against such acquisition. Petitioners made prayers before Additional District Magistrate Haldia on 28.08.2000 to make arrangement of giving compensation to petitioners. On the basis of representation of petitioners the Special land Acquisition Officer, Haldia called them to appear before him on 04.09.2001. Petitioners appeared but no decision has been received from the Additional District Magistrate (respondent No. 2). 3. Filing supplementary affidavit stating inter alia the petitioners have stated that in the year 2000 they came to learn that the Land Acquisition Collector, Haldia has acquired the land in question in L.A. Case No. 41/92-93 but no compensation has been paid to the petitioners. Said land has been handed over to the respondent No. 7 but the land remains fallow. By an order dated, 11.04.2014 a direction was given in this case for making an application by petitioners to the authorities seeking enhanced compensation. Said land has been handed over to the respondent No. 7 but the land remains fallow. By an order dated, 11.04.2014 a direction was given in this case for making an application by petitioners to the authorities seeking enhanced compensation. During pendency of this case petitioners received notice dated 11.07.2014 from the officer of respondent No. 2 wherefrom it appears that the land in question was not included in the notification under Section 3(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act- I, 1894 as the land was vested to the State and that the land in question was neither acquired nor its possession was handed over to Haldia Petro Chemicals Limited. Letter dated 11.07.2014 has been made annexure P- 8. Prayer has been made for direction upon respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to hand over the vacant possession in favour of petitioners. 4. On going through the materials on record this Court does not find even a chit of paper in support of the petitioners’ affidavits to substantiate their claim of requisition of land in question for development of Haldia Petro Chemicals Complex Limited or acquired by the State Government at any point of time under the provisions of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 or under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Rather, it appears from petitioners’ annexure P- 8 that in an unambiguous language it was informed by respondent No. 2 to petitioners that no proceeding was drawn up in respect of the subject land and the land was kept outside the purview of the L.A. proceeding due to such land being vested to the State. 5. It is observation of this Court from the materials on record that it has not been substantiated in this case that the land in question was ever requisitioned or acquisitioned as alleged by petitioners in their writ application and therefore, the prayers relating to their claim of compensation with interest against acquisition do not have legs to stand upon. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hasmukhrai V. Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2015) 3 SCC 154 in support of the case of the petitioners. On going through the cited case it appears to this Court that the ratio of the said case and the present case is distinguishable. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2015) 3 SCC 154 in support of the case of the petitioners. On going through the cited case it appears to this Court that the ratio of the said case and the present case is distinguishable. In the reported case there were sufficient materials to substantiate that land of appellant was reserved for public purpose by Khopoti Municipal Council but despite repeated requests of appellants the respondents did not initiate acquisition proceeding but in the instant case it is not substantiated that the land in question was ever requisitioned for development of Haldia Petro Chemicals Complex Ltd. As such, the said ruling does not fortify the petitioners in this case. 7. Before concluding the discussions I like to point out that in the original writ application in paragraph 11 the petitioners have alleged that respondent No. 6 started Misc Case No. 4/2001 under Section 14T (5) read with Section 14T (8) and (9) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and notice was served upon the petitioners and they appeared before respondent No. 6 but petitioners are not aware about fate of that proceeding. Interestingly, the petitioners made no prayer in the original writ application relating to the said proceeding under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 which relates to vesting of surplus lands beyond ceiling area to the State. In the supplementary affidavit in para 11 a direction has been sought for against respondent Nos. 4 and 6 to hand over the vacant possession of the land in question to the petitioners. 8. Petitioners have annexed P- 1 claiming that the land in question has been duly recorded in their records of rights. In the eye of law, record of rights is a document of possession having presumption of correctness unless rebutted. Petitioners have neither pleaded nor produced any document to show their dispossession from that land either by any overt act or by operation of law. Surprisingly, in their supplementary affidavit dated 28.07.2014 they are claiming for a direction to hand over vacant possession of the land in question in favour of petitioners without making out any case of their dispossession therefrom on any particular date. The totality makes out a case like drinking milk and chewing tobacco at the same time which is not acceptable as the proposition is self-contradictory. 9. The totality makes out a case like drinking milk and chewing tobacco at the same time which is not acceptable as the proposition is self-contradictory. 9. In conclusion, I find and hold that the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief in this case and, therefore, the writ application stands dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated. However, no order as to costs is passed herein. 10. Let urgent Xerox plain copy of this judgment and order duly counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be supplied to the learned Advocates of the respective parties on usual undertaking to apply for certified copy of the same. 11. Certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.