SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, C.J.I., J.C.SHAH, S.M. SIKRI, V. RAMASWAMI AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
M/s. Bijoya Lakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. (In both the Appeals), Appellant
Versus
State of W.B. and others (In both the Appeals), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 216 and 217 of 1964,
D/-18-1-1967.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Bishan Narain, Senior Advocate, (Mr. B. P. Maheshwari, Advocate, with him), for Appellant (In both the Appeals); Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (M/s. D. N. Mukerjee and P. K. Bose, Advocates, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (In both the Appeals); Mr. S. K. Roy Choudhury, Advocate and M/s. Rameshwar Nath, Mohinder Narain and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., for Respondent No. 3 (In both the Appeals).
Judgement
VAIDIALINGAM, J. : These two appeals, on certificate, are directed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, in Appeals from Orders, Nos .397 and 398 of 1958, dated March 5, 1959, in so far as the High Court has held that the notification, issued by the State Government, under S. 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 (W. B. Act XXI of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is valid. The appellant and respondents, in both the appeals, are the same and common questions arise for consideration in both.
2. The Society of Farmers and Rural Industrialists, of which the third respondent is the Secretary, requested the first respondent, the State of West Bengal, to acquire, compulsorily, certain lands for the establishment of an Agricultural Colony for creating better living conditions therein. The first respondent issued a notification, on February 4, 1955, under S. 4 of the Act, stating that an extent of about 28.59 acres of lands, more fully described therein, and situated in the villages of Ghola and Natagarh, is likely to be needed for a public purpose, viz., the establishment of an agricultural colony and the creation of better living conditions. There is no controversy that a major portion of the lands, comprised in this notification, belonged to the appellant-Mills. The said notification was published in the Calcutta Gazette, on February 17, 1955. This notification was signed by the Assistant Secretary, Land and Revenue Department of the Government of West Bengal.
3. The first respondent then directed the Society to prepare a development scheme and submit the same to the Collector, to enable him to hear objections as per the rules framed under the Act. On or about March 21, 1955, the Society submitted a development scheme and the Collector issued notice, under R. 5 (2) of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Rules, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), inviting objections, within the time specified therein, to the scheme being sanctioned. The objections filed by the appellant Mills, to the sanctioning of the scheme, were overruled by the Collector. On February 10, 1956, the Land Planning Committee, which is the prescribed authority, under the Act, recommended acceptance of the scheme submitted by the Society and for issue of a declaration, by the Government, under S. 6 of the Act. On July 21, 1956, the Government issued the declaration, under S. 6 of the Act, which, again, was published in the State Gazette, on August 9,1956. This declaration was signed by the Deputy Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Government of West Bengal. On August 28, 1956, notice of the intention to take possession of the lands was issued under R. 8 of the Rules.
4. On September 13, 1956, the appellant-Mills filed, in the Calcutta High Court, a writ petition, Civil Rule No. 2620 of 1956, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and prayed for a writ, in the nature of mandamus, to be issued directing the State Government and its officers, not to give effect or take any steps, on the basis of the notice issued. It also prayed for the issue of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, quashing the notification, under S. 4, and the declaration, under S. 6, issued by the State Government. Though the appellant raised several grounds of attack, as against the proceedings, leading up to the issue of the notice, under R. 8, the main point that appears to have been urged before the learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petition, was that, having due regard to the scheme of the Act and the materials available, it cannot be said that the Government have sanctioned any scheme, nor can Government be said to have been satisfied, before issuing the declaration under S. 6 of the Act, that the notified lands were needed for a public purpose. In short, the appellant s stand appears to have been that proceedings have been initiated by the Assistant Secretary of the Department and orders issued either by him or by the
Referred : R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore
Ghaio Mall and Sons v. State of Delhi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.