1997 Supreme(SC) 929

1997(6) Supreme 474
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Calcutta High Court)
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
West Bengal Housing Board etc. —Appellants
versus
Brijendra Prasad Gupta & Ors. etc.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4333 of 1997
With
C.A. Nos. 4334-35, 4338, 4336-37/97
(@ SLP (C) Nos. 13416-17/96, SLP (C) No. 13421/96, SLP (C) Nos. 13433-34/96)
All Decided on 9-7-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Mr. V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. D.P. Gupta, Mr.T.C. Ray, Dr. Shankar Ghose and Mr. N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocates. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Mr. Ujjawal Banerjee, Mr. P. Basu, Mr. H.K. Puri, Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Ms. Laxmi Arvind, Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Mr. G.K. Bansal, Mr. Arvind Kumar, Ms. Radha Rangaswamy, Ms. Zoya Hadke, Advocates.

Headnote:(i) West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948—Section 3(2), 4—Rule 3—Requisition and subsequent acquisition of certain piece of land—Challenged on ground that there was no proper service of notice as required u/s 3—Names of writ petitioners were not recorded in Record of Rights by prescribed authority—Purchase of land was made by petitioners in 1988—They applied for mutation of land in their names in 1990—Certificate of mutation was granted in 1995 much after when land was acquired u/s 4—Whether writ petitioners were entitled to notice u/s 3(2) of the Act?—(No)—Provisions of service of notice stood complied when notices served on persons recorded as owners in Record of Rights maintained u/s 50 of West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

       Held that the provisions of service of notice stood complied when notices were served on the persons recorded as owners in the Record of Rights. Record of Rights is a statutory document maintained by the prescribed authority under Section 50 of the Act and it is a notice to the public at large as to who are the owners of the land in the records of the authorities. That would be the reason as to why writ petitioners themselves applied for mutation of the lands in their names in the year 1990 when in fact they had purchased the same in 1988. Under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, the Act overrides other laws if there is anything inconsistent with what is stated in the Act. Section 50 of the Act provides for maintenance of the record-of-rights by the prescribed authority by incorporating therein the changes on account of mutation of names as a result of transfer or inheritance or partition, exchange etc. Under sub-section (9) of Section 51A every entry in the record-of-rights shall be presumed to be correct, until it is proved that the entry in the record-of-right is incorrect, proceedings for that, however, will have to be initiated under the Act itself. Otherwise there is every presumption about the correctness of the record-of-rights. It is no part of the duty of the Collector to make a roving inquiry into ownership of the persons. We are of the opinion the requirements of the law were met when notices were served upon the recorded owners as per Record of Rights. Again we do not think in a case like the present one, it is for the Collector to make enquiries from registration office to find out if the land had since been said by the recorded owners. The Collector in the present case was thus justified in relying on the official record being the Record of Rights as to who were owners of the land sought to be requisitioned and prudence did not require any further enquiry to be made. We are therefore of the view that notices were properly served under Section 3(2) of the Act on the owners of the land. (Para 7)

       (ii) West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948—Sections 3, 4—Public purpose—Housing Project—Acquisition of land for construction of housing complex—Land transferred to Housing Board for construction of houses for poor people—It was a public purpose—Simply because there is an element of profit could not make whole scheme illegal—Legal compulsion of State and Housing Board to get housing project executed through a joint sector company—Impugned action is within purview of law and is valid.

       Held : It is a matter of common knowledge that there is acute shortage of housing accommodation both in rural and urban areas of the country. Since late the prices of the real estate have sky-rocketed making it beyond the reach of low income and middle income people. State has a duty to perform to give shelter to homeless people specially to people in the low income group. In the present case State was unable to meet this gigantic task. In the background of shortage of resources which the State has the legislature enacted the Housing Board Act and constituted the Housing Board to meet the challenge of providing houses to the people falling in the low income group and to others. Again Housing Board was unable to meet the challenge. Housing Board Act was amended to bring in the concept of joint venture in order to tap the resources of the private sector. Thus, a joint venture came into being as disclosed in the supplementary affidavit of the State as to how the process of starting of joint venture had gone into and how the Board of Directors of the Joint sector company had been constituted and how the State and Housing Board exercise control over this joint sector enterprise. (Para 19)

        Simply because there is an element of profit could not make the whole scheme illegal. A private entrepreneur will certainly look to some profit but to see that the profit motive does not lead to exploitation even of the rich and that the houses are available to the poor people and to middle class people at nominal or affordable prices, or even on no profit no loss basis, the Housing Board exercises the necessary control. It is certainly a public purpose to provide houses to the community especially to poor people for whom the prices are beyond their means and they would otherwise be never able to acquire a house.

       What has been done in the present case is that the profit earned on sale of flats of HIG have been pumped into to subsidise the prices of the houses falling in LIG and in this there would certainly be an element of profit both for the Housing Board as well as the private company in the joint venture for selling flats of HIG. We fail to see how public purpose is not being served in the present case.

       Court must shake off its myth that public purpose is served only if the State, or the Housing Board or the joint sector company does not earn any profit. There cannot be any better authority than the State or the statutory corporation to supervise or monitor the functions of the joint venture company. Courts will certainly step in if the public purpose is sought to be frustrated.

       In the present case Directors appointed by the Housing Board/State on the Board of Directors of the Joint Venture Company would certainly see that no run away profit is earned and that sale price of HIG Houses is guided by market forces but their is no exploitation. Every section of the society needs protection from exploitation. It is however not possible nor desirable to lay down any principle as to how this to be done in a particular case. (Para 20)

       Further held : We find in the present back-drop the inability of the State Government and the Housing Board to meet the challenge to achieve the target of even constructing 50,000 dwelling units in urban areas to tackle the acute problem of homelessness for different categories of people particularly those falling in Lower Income Group (LIG) and Middle Income Group (MIG); the State legislature amending the Housing Board Act and providing for incorporation of a joint sector company for executing the housing scheme on the terms and conditions to be approved by the State Government selection of the private entrepreneur for incorporation of the joint sector company with the Housing Board; the Constitution of the Board of Directors of the joint sector company; the control of the Housing Board and the State Government over the joint sector company to execute the scheme of the housing project; control on the fixation of prices of the flats to be constructed by the joint sector company; relevant factors taken into consideration for execution of the housing project and all these to tackle the urgent and growing need of providing shelter to the LIG and MIG people when it is not possible for these people to acquire a house of their own with escalating real estate prices; it cannot be said that the public purpose is not being served or the incorporation of the joint sector company viz. Bengal Peerless Housing Development Company Ltd. and the execution of the housing project “Anupama” by this joint sector company, in the given circumstances, on the land in question which is a part of the bigger piece of land is not in public interest. The Housing Board acts as regulatory body and the State Government overseas the housing project and has also imposed certain terms and conditions. No ulterior purpose has been alleged and it cannot be said that the power exercised by the State authorities are in any way arbitrary or irrational or there is any abuse of power. Rather the legal compulsion of the State and the Housing Board to get the housing project executed through a joint sector company is quite understandable. We also find the impugned action is within the purview of law and is valid. (Para 24)

       (iii) Judicial Review—Scope and limitations—Courts normally do not interfere in policy matters of State unless there are allegations of malafides—An overall view is to be taken of the matter.

       Held : The Courts normally do not interfere in the policy matters of the State. If, however, the policy so formulated is against the mandate of the Constitution or any statutory provisions it can certainly be tested on the principles of judicial review. When an act falls within the policy of the State which has been formulated for the benefit of the poor and needy and which policy cannot be faulted, court should stay its hands and need not examine the details minutely with a magnifying glass to find some fault here and there unless there are allegations of mala-fides. An overall view is to be taken of the matter and this potent weapon of judicial review cannot be used indiscriminately. (Para 23)