1. Property requisitioned under West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 — Dispute over validity of subsequent acquisition after failure to comply with court-mandated timeline for release. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1398
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority - Appellant
Versus
Pradip Kumar Ghosh & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 461 of 2009
Decided On : 24-10-2017
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Anindita Gupta, Ms. Kumud L. Das, Rajesh Srivastava, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocates.
For the Appellant :Ms. Anindita Gupta, Ms. Kumud L. Das, Rajesh Srivastava, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocates.
A court's direction to acquire property within a specific timeframe or release it does not automatically terminate a requisition or stultify statutory powers. Requisition continues until a formal release order is passed under the Act, rendering subsequent acquisition lawful despite the delay in following the court's timeline.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - WEST BENGAL LAND (REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION) ACT, 1948 - SECTIONS 3, 4, 6 - REQUISITION OF PROPERTY - ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY - MANDAMUS - EFFECT OF COURT ORDER - RES JUDICATA - NULLITY OF ORDER - VOID ORDER - PUBLIC PURPOSE - COLOURABLE EXERCISE OF POWER - VALIDITY OF ACQUISITION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The property in question had been requisitioned under the provisions of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (the Act) by the issuance of notification under section 3(1) since requisition continued for long for 14 years. It was questioned by filing a writ petition i.e. CR 15177 (W) of 1979 disposed of on 10.9.1993. The High Court of Calcutta did not quash the notification issued under section 3(1), passed an order directing the concerned authorities to acquire the properties in question if so desired within a period of 6 months from the date of communication of order and if the authorities did not acquire the property within the time specified the Land Acquisition Collector was directed to release the property under requisition and restore possession of the same to the writ petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The Division Bench of the High Court has erred in law in quashing the acquisition. We set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and restore that of the Single Bench.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court erred in quashing the acquisition of the property under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948? 2. Whether the order of the High Court dated 10.9.1993 directing the authorities to acquire the property within 6 months or release it from requisition had the effect of automatically derequisitioning the property upon the expiry of the specified time? 3. Whether the acquisition of the property was a colourable exercise of power or was made for a genuine public purpose? 4. Whether the principle of res judicata applies to the case and whether the earlier order of the High Court barred the authorities from acquiring the property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to acquire land under section 4 of the Act can be exercised only when land has been requisitioned under section 3 and not otherwise. 2. A direction by the court to acquire property within a specified time or release it from requisition does not automatically derequisition the property upon the expiry of the specified time. The property remains under requisition until an order of release is passed under section 6 of the Act. 3. The acquisition of the property was not a colourable exercise of power as it was made for a genuine public purpose, namely, the systematic development of Calcutta. 4. The principle of res judicata does not apply to the case as the earlier order of the High Court did not quash the requisition of the property and did not bar the authorities from acquiring the property.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed. Parties to bear their costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether failure to acquire property within a court-stipulated period automatically terminates requisition, rendering subsequent acquisition ultra vires, mala fide, and a nullity. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Requisition requires formal release and delivery of possession under Section 6; court-mandated timelines for acquisition do not automatically stultify statutory powers unless the requisition is quashed. (Para 6 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
4. Statutory power to acquire requisitioned land remains available unless the requisition order is quashed or a formal release order under Section 6 is executed. (Para 22 , 24 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order of Division Bench set aside — Order of Single Bench restored — Acquisition held lawful. (Para 28 )
6. Can a requisition order continue indefinitely?
No, a requisition order is temporary by nature and cannot endure for an indefinite or unreasonably long period. If the public purpose is permanent, the government must acquire the property rather than continuing a requisition, as indefinite requisitioning would be a fraud on the power conferred. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
7. Does a court's direction to complete acquisition within a specific timeframe stultify the authority's statutory power to acquire the land later?
No, directions issued by a court to complete proceedings within a particular time to avoid delay do not stifle statutory powers or render statutory provisions unenforceable, provided the authority is still legally permitted to exercise those powers under the governing statute. (Para 23 , 24 )
8. What is the legal procedure for releasing property from requisition under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948?
Release requires the State Government to conduct any necessary inquiry and pass a written order specifying the person entitled to possession, followed by the actual delivery of possession of the land to that person. (Para 12 , 13 )
9. Is a prior requisition a necessary condition for the acquisition of land under Section 4 of the Act?
Yes, the power to acquire land under Section 4 can only be exercised if the land has been previously requisitioned under Section 3; an illegal order of acquisition cannot be validated by a subsequent requisition. (Para 11 , 14 )
JUDGMENT :
Arun Mishra, J.
Aggrieved by the quashing of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") notice under section 4(1)(a) was published in the Gazette on 14.10.1996 and also notice under section 5 of the Act. The property in question had been requisitioned under the provisions of the Act by the issuance of notification under section 3(1) since requisition continued for long for 14 years. It was questioned by filing a writ petition i.e. CR 15177 (W) of 1979 disposed of on 10.9.1993. The High Court of Calcutta did not quash the notification issued under section 3(1), passed an order directing the concerned authorities to acquire the properties in question if so desired within a period of 6 months from the date of communication of order and if the authorities did not acquire the property within the time specified the Land Acquisition Collector was directed to release the property under requisition and restore possession of the same to the writ petitioner.
2. Thereafter there was some delay in initiating the land acquisition proceedings. The notification under section 4(1)(a) of the Act had been issued on 14.10.1996 for the acquisition of premises No.11, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata. Questioning the same, fresh petition - Writ Petition No.4361 (W) of 1997 was filed. Award was passed determining the compensation in a sum of Rs.7,69,950/-. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Bench vide order dated 11.3.1998. It was held by the Single Bench that in case the order dated 10.9.1993 was not complied, by the concerned authorities they would be liable for contempt of court and may be dealt with in accordance with law in the contempt proceedings, but the mere fact that possession of the property was not restored, in view of the order passed on 10.9.1993 the same would not disentitle the authority in taking steps for acquisition of the property.
3. As against dismissal of the writ petition, appeal MAT No.1165/1998 had been preferred before the Division Bench. The Division Bench has allowed the same vide impugned judgment and order. The Government of West Bengal had conveyed the property by registered deed of conveyance on 21.12.2004 to Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority for development. A Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the appeal. It was held that requisition under section 3(1) of the Act deemed to have been lapsed, as such the acquisition was illegal. Aggrieved thereby the appeal has been preferred by the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority.
4. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that the High Court did not quash the notification relating to requisition issued under section 3(1) of the Act, but only issued a direction that the requisition should not continue for an indefinite period. Thus either the land was to be acquired or it should have been released from the requisition. The requisition continued and a notification under section 4(1)(a) of the Act had been issued. Award has been passed. Thus the property has vested in the State Government. The order of reacquisition did not lapse. The acquisition made was lawful. The ratio of Collector of Kamrup & Ors.v. Kamakhya Ram Barooah etc. AIR 1965 SC 1301 was not attracted. The only question for consideration was the effect of the order-dated 10.9.1993. The requisition came to an end on the issuance of notification under section 4(1) of the Act. There was no embargo created by orders of the court to exercise statutory power for the purpose of acquisition.
5. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents urged that the property had continued for a period of more than 14 years in requisition. Thus the High Court has passed an order on 10.9.1993 that the requisition was illegal and impermissible. A direction was issued to release the property in case the property was not acquired within the time specified. As the State Government h
