JUDGMENT
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.
1. The petitioners are questioning the notice issued by the collector under Section 9(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, inserted by the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997. The notice was issued on March 1st. 2006.
2. Counsel submits that in view of Division Bench decision of this Court in Sterling Stock Brokers Put. Ltd. and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported at 2001 (1) CHN 531, the collector was not empowered to issue the notice, since the requisition proceedings had been initiated under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, and since it was held in that Division Bench decision that provisions in under which the notice has been issued, were prospective in nature.
3. I do not find any merit in this contention. The admitted position is that the writ petition, out of which the appeal arose, and in which the relied on Division Bench decision was given, was finally withdrawn by the petitioners therein, when the appeal of the state was being heard by the Apex Court Their Lordships of the Apex Court permitted the petitioners of that case to withdraw the writ petition. That Division Bench decision thus merged with the final order of the Apex Court permitting withdrawal of the writ petition.
4. I am unable to agree with counsel that though the writ petition was withdrawn, the Division Bench decision is still valid as a binding precedent. A binding decision is one that binds in the first instance the parties in the case in which it is given. The Division Bench decision in question does not bind the parties in that case itself. Hence there is no question of following that decision for binding others. That apart, the question raised in the present writ petition was decided by another Division Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal v. Soumendra Mohan Dey reported at ILR (2003)1 Cal 410 (DB). In view of that subsequent binding decision, I hold that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners.
5. The notice is then challenged, as argued by counsel, on the ground that the collector called upon the petitioners to participate in the proceedings to be conducted in the office of the block land and land. reforms officer, where, in spite of best efforts, the petitioners could not enter. Counsel says that the petitioners were prevented from entering into the office of the block land and land reforms officer. Even if it is assumed that what the peitioners are alleging is correct, in my view, that is no ground to hold that the notice is bad in law. The petitioners were at liberty to request the collector to hold the proceedings at some other place. It will be worth noting here that counsel for the state has made it clear that, if directed, the collector shall hold the proceedings in his Alipore office.
6. The last ground on which counsel assails the impugned notice is that though the petitioners were entitled to get rent compensation, without disclosing the basis the collector simply sanctioned the amount mentioned in his letter dated February 28th, 2006. He adds that without demarcating the acquired portion of the land, the collector was not empowered to mention an amount. In my view, this is no ground either to hold that the notice in question is bad in law. Needless to say that the petitioners were at liberty to participate in the proceedings raising their objection to the amount sanctioned by the collector. They were also at liberty to put forward their claims on all accounts.
7. As a result I do not find any reason to interfere with the notice issued by the collector under Section 9(3A). The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on merits. As to the question of holding proceedings, I think since the petitioners are making certain allegations regarding the difficulties they are facing, in participating in the proceedings, the collector should hold the proceedings in his Alipore office. It is hoped that he shall dispose of the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
Copy of this order duly countersigned by the AR(C) or ACO shall be supplied to advocates for the parties, on usual undertakings.