Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
DEBI PRASAD PAL
PRAN JIVAN JAITHA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. 2752 (W) Of 1966
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 13, 1973
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - PUBLICATION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - PART VII OF THE ACT - SECTION 5-A - Vires - PUBLIC PURPOSE - BLIND BOYS ACADEMY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the notification issued under Section 4 and the declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of certain plots of land for a public purpose, namely, for Hind Boys Academy, to be run by the Ramkrishna Mission. The petitioner's residence was included in the said notification. The petitioner contended that no public notice of the substance of the notification was given, that the acquisition was not for a public purpose, and that Section 5-A of the Act was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as no rules had been framed under Section 55 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the substance of the notification had been duly published at the conspicuous places of the locality in accordance with the provision of Section 4 (1) of the Act. The court also found that the acquisition was for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of a Blind Boys Academy to be run by the Ramkrishna Mission. The court further found that Section 5-A of the Act was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as the absence of any rule framed under the Act did not give any naked or arbitrary power to the Collector.
Issues: 1. Whether the substance of the notification was duly published in accordance with the provision of Section 4 (1) of the Act? 2. Whether the acquisition was for a public purpose? 3. Whether Section 5-A of the Act was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the substance of the notification had been duly published at the conspicuous places of the locality in accordance with the provision of Section 4 (1) of the Act, as evidenced by the affidavit of the Collector and the report under Section 5-A of the Act. 2. The court held that the acquisition was for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of a Blind Boys Academy to be run by the Ramkrishna Mission, which is well known for its philanthropic activities. 3. The court held that Section 5-A of the Act was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as the absence of any rule framed under the Act did not give any naked or arbitrary power to the Collector, as the Collector was exercising a quasi-judicial power for the purpose of giving the objector an opportunity of being heard.
Final Decision: The rule was discharged, and the interim order, if any, was vacated. There was no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioner in this application has challenged the notification issued under Section 4 and the declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of certain plots of land specified in the notification and situated in the village Ukhilapaikpara, within the jurisdiction List No. 56, P. S. Sonarpur, 24-Parganas. In the notification it is stated that the said land is likely to be needed for a public purpose, viz. for Hind Boys Academy, and the acquisition would be partly at the public expense and partly with the expense of Ramkrishna Mission. The petitioner's residence named as "ananda Bhavan" covering C. S. Plots Nos. 317 to 329, 331, 338 to 346, 352 to 360, 1094 and 1095 and parts of C. S. Plot Nos. 312, 313, 316, 361 and 365 in Mouza Ukhilapaikpara within P. S. Sonarpore is included in the said notification dated 20th April, 1965, issued under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioner thereafter preferred an objection under Section 5-A of the Act contending inter alia that the purpose for which the acquisition is to be made is not a public purpose and that there are other suitable and convenient lands. The other grounds which relate to the needs and requirements of the petitioner for the said house need not be stated or dealt with. It appears from the affidavit of Khirode Behari Gupta affirmed on 26th February, 1969 and filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that the substance of the notification made under Section 4 of the Act was duly published at conspicuous places in the locality inviting objection, if any, from persons interested in the land against the said acquisition, fn fact apart from the petitioner, one Sri Ajit Kumar Roy and Sri Sailendra Nath Biswas filed their objections before the Land Acquisition Collector, 24-Parganas, relating to their respective lands. Sri T. S. Mukherjec. the predecessor-in-office of the deponent held the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and after complying with all formalities under the Act, submitted his report under Section 5-A to the State Government containing his recommendations on the objections together with the records of the proceedings held by him for the decision of the Government. It is further stated in the said affidavit that after due consideration of the said report of the Collector, Sri T. S. Mukherjee the State Government having been satisfied that the disputed land along with other lands were needed for a public purpose made the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
( 2 ) AT the time of the hearing of the rule, the learned Counsel for the petitioner first contended that no public notice of the substance of the notification was caused to be given at convenient places in the locality and as such the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. To examine this contention it is necessary to consider some of the facts which appear from the supplementary affidavits filed by the parties pursuant to the directions of the Court and also the records made available before this Court. Sri T. S. Mukherjee who has considered the objection filed under Section 5-A of the Act and has sent the report under Section 5-A of the Act has filed an affidavit affirmed on 24th July, 1973. He states that after the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the Calcutta Gazette he got a copy of the said Gazette and caused publication of the substance of the said notification at various conspicuous places of the locality including mouza Ukhilapaikpara where the deputed lands are situated. He directed the then Nazir attached to the - office of the Land Acquisition Collector, 24-Parganas, to cause publication of the notices containing the substante of the notification issued under his signature in the capacity as Collector at the various conspicuous places mentioned in the said notices. He further states that as far as he remembered the said direction was duly complied with, and the Process Server
AI
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
