ASR 38. Ct. no. 24. 9.09.2025 WPA 11075 of 1992 With IA No. CAN 2 of 2024 with IA No. CAN 3 of 2025 Sujit Kumar Nandi & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bench & Ors. Mr. Saumyen Datta Mr. Tapas Singha Roy …..For the petitioners Mr. Amrito Lal Chatterjee ….For the State Re : CAN 2 of 2024 & Re : CAN 3 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2024 is an application for restoration of writ petition being WPA 11075 of 1992 by recalling an order dated 12th March, 2020 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court. CAN 3 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the merits in the matter involved herein the application being CAN 2 of 2024 as well as CAN 3 of 2025 is considered and allowed. Prayer for restoration is allowed by condonation of delay. The writ petition being no. WPA 11075 of 1992 is hereby restored to its original file and number. 2 According CAN 2 of 2024 and CAN 3 of 2025 are considered and disposed of. Re : WPA 11075 of 1992 The brief fact of the matter is that the notice under Section 8(b) of the West Bengal Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1984 (herein after referred to as the Act II of 1948) were left in the premises of the petitioners, wherefrom they have came to know that concerned Collector has started a case being No. 7R/89-90. After receiving such notice petitioners came to know that requisition has been made by the Government for Acquisition of the Landed properties described in the writ petition. It is the contention of the petitioners that no notice has declared under Section 3 (2) of Act II of 1948 was ever been served upon the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that the notice under Section 3 (2) of the Act II of 1948 is mandatory. No authority can start a proceeding of acquisition or issue a notice under Section 8(b) of Act II of 1948 without serving notice under Section 3(2) of the said Ac-II of 1948. It is the positive fact of the petitioners, that they are in possession over the property in question and no portion of the property has ever been acquired by the State in pursuance to the so called acquisition case being case no. 7R/89-90. 3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondent submits that the State authority has property served the notices under Section 3(2) of Act II of 1948 before initiation of the said acquisition case. Consequently, after service of notice the petitioners were served with notice under Section 8(b) of the said Act, 1948. However, Mr. Amrito Lal Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State express his inability to place the record of the said Acquisition proceeding. It appears that the instant writ petition is pending since 1992. Since then no document of Acquisition case was brought on record or state has not filed any report. It is the positive assertion of the petitioner that they are in possession over the property in question and no portion of the property has ever been acquired by the State. It is true that before initiation of acquisition proceeding under Act II of 1948, a notice of requisition under Section 3(2) of the said Act –II of 1948 is mandatory. No such notice has been placed by State respondent. Considering the situation, I think it necessary that the matter should be relegated to the concerned L.A. Collector, Paschim Burdwan to determine the issue. It appears that after bifurcation of Burdwan District Collectorate the property in question situated 4 under the jurisdiction of L.A. Collector, Pachim Burdwan. Petitioner is at leave to add L.A. Collector, Paschim Burdwan as a party respondent to this proceeding during course of the day. Under the above observation the instant writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is directed to file a composite representation before the concerned L.A. Collector, Paschim Burdwan within three weeks from the date of passing of this order. On receiving such representation the concerned L.A. Collector shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard of the petitioner and shall dispose of the representation within 2nd week of November, 2025. The decision of the L.A. Collector should be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. I make it clear that this court has only observed the merit of this matter but not decided any issue in this writ petition. All issues are kept open. The petitioners shall demonstrate their case before the L.A. Collector concerned and the L.A. Collector shall dispose of the writ petition according to law without being influenced by any observation of this court. 5 Since no affidavits are exchanged, the allegation made in the writ petitioner shall be deemed to have been not admitted. Instant writ petition thus disposed of. [Subhendu Samanta, J]