Bireswar Basak & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.

By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day''s list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 18th July, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 23988 (W) of 2014 (Aloka Sen and others vs. The Union of India and others).

The appellants before us are the writ petitioners - save and except Aloka Sen, the writ petitioner no.1, who has been described as the proforma respondent herein.

Even a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging the notification dated 27th March, 2014, issued under section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, for acquisition of the land of the writ petitioners.

The learned Single Judge after considering the respective contentions of the parties passed the following order:- "Since the land on which the shop rooms of the petitioners are situated is acquired by following due process of law for the purpose of widening the National Highway and since the possession of the land is taken over long back and since the petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.5 have already received the amount of compensation, I am of the view that the other petitioners are at liberty to file representation before the Competent Authority indicating their right to use the shop rooms in question and the said representation will be considered in accordance with law. In view of my above findings, I am unable to accept the contention made on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents will maintain status quo with regard to possession of the land in question till representation of the petitioners is decided on merit by the Competent Authority.

The petitioners except the petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.5 are at liberty to submit representation before the respondent no.6 indicating their right to use the shop rooms situated on the land acquired by the State-respondents for the purpose of widening the National Highway within a period of two weeks from this date. The respondent no.6 is directed to consider the representation submitted by the said petitioners under Section 3G(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receiving the representation. The respondent no.6 is directed to give the said respondents an opportunity of hearing before making final decision on the representation submitted by the said petitioner. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of".

Upon considering the pleadings on record and the report in the form of an affidavit filed by the respondent no.6, being the Additional District Magistrate (LA) Nadia, we are of the view that the impugned order does not warrant any interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal. The impugned order is supported with cogent reasons and no palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed upon a plain reading of the same.

As such, the appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. We, however, extend the time for filing of representation before the Competent Authority on the basis of the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge as contained in the order dated 18th July, 2017, by a fortnight from date.