Judgment

SIKRI, CJI.: In our order dated March 10, 1970, we stated that we will give our reasons later for rejecting the points raised before us. We now proceed to give those reasons.

2. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta (Bose, C. J., and Mitra, J.) dismissing the appeal of Sachindra Mohan Nandy and Jnanendra Mohan Nandy, now appellants before us against the judgment of Mukherjee, J. discharging the rule obtained by the appellants under Art 226 of the Constitution. In order to appreciate the points raised before us it is necessary to state the relevant facts.

3. On October 9, 1960 and October 10, 1960, the Collector of Hoogly made two orders under S. 3 (1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Acquisition Act. The Collector purported to requisition land belonging to the appellants for certain public purposes. He had issued the orders in exercise of the powers which had been conferred upon him by notification No 3775-L A dated May, 11, 1948, published in the Calcutta Gazette. Part I, on May 27, 1948. This notification had authorised the Collector to exercise the powers under S. 3 (1) of the Acquisition Act. When this notification was passed Chandernagore, where the requisitioned land is situate, was not part of West Bengal and it is on this fact that one argument, shortly to be mentioned, rests

4. According to the appellants the Acquisition Act has never been extended and made applicable to Chandernagore. For appreciating this particular point it is necessary to state the history of Chandernagore. It is well known that it was a French settlement in India and it was only on October 2, 1954, that it was merged in the State of Bengal. Section 3 of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act. 1954 (XXXVI of 1954) provided that Chandernagore shall form part of the State of West Bengal, District of Hoogly, and the State Government shall provide for the administration of Chandernagore by constituting it into a new sub-division of the District of Hoogly. Section 17 provided that "all laws which immediately before the appointed day extend to, or are in force in, the State of West Bengal generally shall as from that day extend to, or, as the case may be, come into force in, Chandernagore." Section 18 has not much relevance but the learned counsel relied on it. Section 18 (1) reads thus:

"18 (1) Repeal of corresponding laws and savings:- Any law in force in Chandernagore immediately before the appointed day (hereafter in this Act referred to as the "corresponding law") which corresponds to any law referred to in Section 17, whether such corresponding law is in force in Chandernagore by virtue of the Chandernagore (Application of Laws) Order. 1950, or by virtue of any notification issued under the Chandernagore (Administration) Regulation. 1952 (Reg. 1 of 1952), or otherwise, shall, as from that day, stand repealed in Chandernagore".

5. The word "law" was defined in the Chandernagore (Merger) Act, l954, as follows (S. 2 (d)):

" "law" means so much of any enactment, Ordinance, Regulation, order, rule, scheme, notification, bye-law or any other instrument having the force of law as relates to matters enumerated in List I and List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution."

6. After this the Legislature of West Bengal enacted the Chandernagore (Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1955. Section 2 (c] of this Act defined "law" to mean "so much of any Act, Ordinance, Regulation. Order, rule, scheme, notification, bye-law or any other instrument having the force of law as relates to matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India". Section 3 provides that "all laws which immediately before the appointed day extend to, or are in force in. the State of West Bengal generally shall, as from that day, extend to, or, as the case may be, come into force in Chandernagore." Section 4 (1) provided for repeal of corresponding laws and reads:

"4 (1) Any law