Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Anil Kumar Sen
BASUMATI BAG - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR, HOWRAH - Respondent
Civil Rule 400 (W) Of 1973
Decided On : JULY 30, 1973
LAND ACQUISITION - REQUISITION - WEST BENGAL LAND (REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION) ACT, 1948 - SECTION 3 - ORDER OF REQUISITION - VALIDITY - PRIOR SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE - NECESSITY - BRIDGE ACT, 1969 - SECTION 24 - INTERPRETATION - DELEGATION OF POWERS - LEGALITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order of requisition of land for the Second Hooghly River Bridge Project under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. The petitioner claimed to be a tenant in respect of the disputed plots and was carrying on pisciculture. The requisition was made on behalf of the State of West Bengal by the Collector specially empowered under Section 3 of the said Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order of requisition was valid and in accordance with law. The court interpreted Section 24 of the Bridge Act, 1969, and held that it did not provide for any independent power of acquisition or lay down any special procedure for such acquisition. The court also held that the power of acquisition emanated from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the procedure to be followed was also the procedure provided for in the said Act. The court further held that Section 24 had the effect of extending the definition clause of the Land Acquisition Act to include therein the purpose of carrying out the functions under the Bridge Act. The court also held that the order of requisition was not bad for want of a prior show-cause notice or a prior hearing. The court interpreted Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, and held that such a prior notice to show cause was excluded. The court also held that the requirement of a fair hearing would be duly fulfilled even if the party aggrieved was given an opportunity to make a representation after the order and such representation was duly considered on its merits.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of requisition was valid and in accordance with law. 2. Whether Section 24 of the Bridge Act, 1969, provided for any independent power of acquisition or laid down any special procedure for such acquisition. 3. Whether the power of acquisition emanated from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the procedure to be followed was also the procedure provided for in the said Act. 4. Whether Section 24 had the effect of extending the definition clause of the Land Acquisition Act to include therein the purpose of carrying out the functions under the Bridge Act. 5. Whether the order of requisition was bad for want of a prior show-cause notice or a prior hearing. 6. Whether Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, excluded such a prior notice to show cause. 7. Whether the requirement of a fair hearing would be duly fulfilled even if the party aggrieved was given an opportunity to make a representation after the order and such representation was duly considered on its merits.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order of requisition was valid and in accordance with law as it was made for a purpose sanctioned by the statute and was otherwise made in accordance with law by a competent authority. 2. The court held that Section 24 of the Bridge Act, 1969, did not provide for any independent power of acquisition or lay down any special procedure for such acquisition. 3. The court held that the power of acquisition emanated from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the procedure to be followed was also the procedure provided for in the said Act. 4. The court held that Section 24 had the effect of extending the definition clause of the Land Acquisition Act to include therein the purpose of carrying out the functions under the Bridge Act. 5. The court held that the order of requisition was not bad for want of a prior show-cause notice or a prior hearing. 6. The court held that Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, excluded such a prior notice to show cause. 7. The court held that the requirement of a fair hearing would be duly fulfilled even if the party aggrieved was given an opportunity to make a representation after the order and such representation was duly considered on its merits.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule and dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) AN order of requisition of land, needed for the Second Hooghly River Bridge Project, is the subject-matter of challenge. The impugned order is one dated November 23. 1972 passed by the duly authorised Collector under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act. 1948 (West Bengal Act II of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). Purpose of acquisition recited is "providing proper facilities for transport and communication in connection with the construction of the Howrah approach and interchange of the Second Hooghly River Bridge Project". Land involved are the two plots at Howrah being plot No. 2/33 Sheet No. 144 and plot No. 1 of Sheet No. 148 These plots admittedly belong to respondent No. 3. the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the Port Commissioners ). The petitioner claims to be a tenant in respect of these two plots under the Port Commissioners carrying on pisciculture as the plots constitute a jheel.
( 2 ) FACTS as they emerge from the affidavits of the different parties may shortly be set out as follows. The aforesaid two plots come within the alignment of the approach viaduct of the proposed bridge on the Howrah side. They are also urgently needed for the construction of approach roads and railway sidings which are necessary for starting construction of the bridge itself as also its approach. Construction of the proposed Bridge and its approach is entrusted with the Hooghly River Bridge Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as Bridge Commissioners) appointed by the State Government under Section 3 of the Hooghly River Bridge Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Bridge Act ). The Bridge Commissioners were so appointed by the State Government by a notification dated February 11, 1970 read with July 21, 1970. The scheme of the project having been finally approved, the Bridge Commissioners by their resolution dated September 11 1970 entrusted the Trustees for the Improvement of Howrah the construction of the approach road and the interchange on the Howrah side as an implementing agency. Such trustees then suggested to the Bridge Commissioners that the aforesaid two plots should immediately be requisitioned -- the possession of other required plots being made available on mutual arrangement. The Bridge Commissioners by their resolution dated September 30, 1970 accepted the suggestion and requested the State Government to forthwith requisition the aforesaid 2 plots. Accordingly by the impugned order the Collector requisitioned the plots in dispute. Feeling aggrieved by this order the petitioner moved this Court on February 28, 1973 although the order was served on her in or about the month of November 1972 and obtained the above Rule on a writ petition.
( 3 ) THE Rule is being contested by the different sets of respondents, viz. (1) the State of West Bengal and the requisitioning authority, (2) the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta. (3) The Trustees for the Improvement of Howrah, (4) the Hooghly River Bridge Commissioners, and (5) the Bhagirathi Construction. All the aforesaid respondents except Bhagirathi Construction have filed their affidavits-in-opposition.
( 4 ) THE Port Commissioners not having denied specifically the petitioner's claim of tenancy under them in respect of the disputed two plots have pleaded with reference to certain undisclosed decisions in civil litigations between the parties that "at no point of time there was any concluded contract between the Commissioners and the said petitioner in respect of the property in dispute in terms of the compromise stated before". Though Mr. Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the said Commissioners, has taken a preliminary objection that the petitioner not having any subsisting right, title and interest in the two plots, the application at her instance is not maintainable in law, yet on the pleadings between the parties and insufficient materials placed before t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
