This requisition was challenged in writ petition in the Calcutta High Court on the ground that numbernotice had been served upon the petitioners the respondents herein as required under Rule 3 aforesaid.
As numbered above 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.
Rule 3 of the Rules reads as under 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 number being the owner of the land, also on such occupier.
The land in plot number.
Against this judgment of the Division Bench the appellants have companye up in appeal before this Court.
An appeal against that judgment by the owners respondents herein was allowed by the Division Bench by judgment dated July 3, 1996 setting aside the order of requisition and directing restoration of the possession of the land to the owners.
a by delivering or tendering a companyy 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 companyy thereof on the outer door of some companyspicuous 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 person on whom the order is to be served by registered post with acknowledgment due, or d by fixing a companyy thereof in some companyspicuous part of the land to which the order relates and also in some companyspicuous place of the office of the Collector.
1997 Supp 2 SCR 160 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. WADHWA, J. Special Leave granted.
Description of the land Mouza Monoharpur Jurisdiction List No.
Revisional Survey plots in full 1787, 1788 and 1812.
to the Govt.
By Order of the Governor S.K. Gupta Dy.
Police Station Chanditala, District Hooghly.
This writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated July 13, 1988 by the learned Single Judge.
of West Bengal.
A plan of the land may be inspected in the office of the Collector, Hooghly.
The respon dents, it would appear from the judgment of the learned single Judge, had challenged the requisition of land measuring 0.57 acres falling in plot number.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 3, 1996 of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court allowing the writ petition of the respondents and thus setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge dated July 13, 1988 by which the writ petition was dismissed.
