State Of W. B. vs Samarendra Nath Paul

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1997 Supreme(SC) 923

1997(7) Supreme 341
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Calcutta High Court)
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
State of West Bengal & Ors. -Petitioners
versus
Samarendra Nath Paul & Ors -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 1997
(Arising out of S.L.P. No 207 of 1997)
Decided on 9-7-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, T.C. Ray, Sr. Advocate, Rajesh Srivastava, P. Basu, H.K. Puri, Advocates.
For the Respondents : N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Radha Rangaswamy and Ms. Zoya Hadke, Advocates.

Headnote:(i) West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948-Sections 3, 4 & 5-Rule 3-Power to requisition-Manner of service of orders-Order is to be served by registered post with acknowledgment due.
       (ii) West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948-Sections 3, 4 and 5-Power to requisition-Order under Section 3(1) need not itself spell out details of purpose for which land is sought to be requisitioned-Housing project-Land has since been acquired-Housing Board which is to execute the scheme has stated as to how funds have to be generated for construction of houses for weaker sections of society-Judgment of Division Bench under appeal that acquisition order was bad in law is not legally sustainable-Scope of judicial review.
       Held : On the face of the order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act which has been extracted above it is difficult to understand and appreciate as to how it could be said that the order was not in accordance with the law. Nobody disputed that there was a housing project at Monoharpur for which purpose the land was requisitioned. One of the purposes for which the land to be requisitioned is certainly by providing services essential to the life of the community which would also mean to include construction of housing for the community at large. The order under Section 3(1) of the Act need not itself spell out the details of the purpose for which the land is sought to be requisitioned. The Housing Board which is to execute the scheme has stated as to how funds have to be generated for construction of houses for the weaker sections of the society. The Housing Board has also taken loan from the Housing Urban Development Corporation, New Delhi and also raised funds by selling certain houses meant for High Income Group (HIG) people, the income from which would be utilised for subsidising the houses meant for weaker sections of the society. This is effect is the stand of State respondents. (Para 9)
       Any land so acquired can be transferred by the State Government to the Housing Board under Section 29 of the West Bengal Housing Board Act, 1972. While so transferring the land the State Government can impose such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. The Housing Board has been constituted for the framing and execution of such housing schemes as it considers necessary and such housing schemes may include housing scheme in relation to lands and buildings vested in or in the possession of the State Government. (Para 11)
       In view of the clear statement of law as aforesaid it is difficult to concur with the judgment of Division Bench under appeal that the acquisition order was bad in law. It is a matter of common knowledge that there is acute paucity of accommodation both in urban and rural areas in the country. It is not the case of the respondents that the power of requisition which were exercised by the State respondents was mala fide or outside the purview of the Act. We do not think that the Court in the exercise of its constitutional powers of judicial review should hasten to set aside the order of the authorities on some supposed grounds when the facts clearly speak for themselves and the authorities act within the scope of their powers as conferred upon them by law. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Special Leave granted.

2. 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. The respondents, it would appear from the judgment of the learned single Judge, had challenged the requisition of land measuring 0.57 acres falling in plot Nos. 1787 and 1788 Mouza Monoharpur, P.S. Chanditala, District Hooghly, in the State of West Bengal by order dated May 9, 1984 of the Collector and Additional District Magistrate. Hooghly passed under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (for short the Act ).

3. Section 3 of the Act empowers the State Government or an authorised Collector of a District (an Additional District Magistrate or Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta) to requisition any land for the objects mentioned therein and Section 4 authorises the State Government to acquire that land for those very objects. Under Section 5 public notice is to be issued by the Collector inviting claims for compensation after the publication of notice acquiring the land. As to how an order under sub-section (1) of Section 3 is to be served is provided under Rule 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Rules, 1948 (for short the Rules ). Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act are as under :

"3. Power to requisition:-(1) If the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community (or for increasing employment opportunities for the people by establishing commercial estates and industrial estates in different areas) or for providing proper facilities for transport, communication, irrigation or drainage, or for the creation of better living conditions in rural or urban areas, not being an industrial or other areas excluded by the State Government by a notification in this behalf, by the construction or re-construction of dwelling places in such areas (or for purposes connected therewith or Incidental thereto), the State Government may, by order in writing, requisition any land and may make such further orders as appear to it to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisitioning :

Provided that no land used for purpose of religious worship or used by an educational or charitable institution shall be requisitioned under this section.

(1A) A Collector of a district, (an Additional District Magistrate or the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta), when authorised by the State Government in this behalf, may exercise within his jurisdiction the powers conferred by sub-section (1).

(2) An order under sub-section (1) shall be served in the prescribed manner on the owner of the land and where the order relates to land in occupation (of an occupier, not being the owner of the land, also on such occupier).

(3) If any person fails to comply with an order made under sub-section (1) the Collector or any person authorised by him in writing in this behalf shall execute that order in such manner as he considers expedient and may.-

(a) if he is a Magistrate, enforce the delivery of possession of the land in respect of which the order has been made to himself, or

(b) if he is not a Magistrate, apply to a Magistrate or, in Calcutta as defined in clause (11) of Section 5 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, to the Commissioner of Police, and such Magistrate or Commissioner, as the case may be shall enforce the delivery of possession of such land to him.

4. Acquisition of Land.-(1) Where any land has been requisitioned under Section 3, the State Government may use or deal with such land for any of the purposes referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 3 as may appear to it to be expedient.

(1a) T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document