Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
ARUN KUMAR MUKHERJEE, MURARI MOHAN DUTT
COMMISSIONERS FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA - Appellant
Versus
PULIN BEHARI MONDAL - Respondent
Appeal From Original Order 674 Of 1971
Decided On : AUGUST 3, 1972
LAND ACQUISITION - CALCUTTA PORT ACT - SECTION 58 - ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR DOCK AT HALDIA - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 35(8) - PUBLIC PURPOSE - JURISDICTION OF STATE GOVERNMENT - ENTRY 31 OF CONCURRENT LIST - ESTABLISHMENT OF PORT AT HALDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of land for the establishment of a Dock at Haldia at the expenses of the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta. The respondents challenged the legality and validity of the notification on various grounds, including the absence of a declaration by the Central Government under Section 58(1) of the Calcutta Port Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proposed construction of a Dock at Haldia was for the purposes of the Calcutta Port Act and that the establishment of a Dock at Haldia was not outside the limits of the Calcutta Port. The court also held that Section 58(1) of the Calcutta Port Act did not exclude the operation of the Land Acquisition Act and that the State Government was entitled to acquire land for a public purpose, although that purpose might be a purpose under the Calcutta Port Act. The court further held that the absence of a prior declaration by the Central Government under Section 58(1) did not render the notification under Section 4 issued by the State Government illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the proposed construction of a Dock at Haldia was for the purposes of the Calcutta Port Act. 2. Whether the establishment of a Dock at Haldia was outside the limits of the Calcutta Port. 3. Whether Section 58(1) of the Calcutta Port Act excluded the operation of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. Whether the State Government was entitled to acquire land for a public purpose, although that purpose might be a purpose under the Calcutta Port Act. 5. Whether the absence of a prior declaration by the Central Government under Section 58(1) rendered the notification under Section 4 issued by the State Government illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 35(8) of the Calcutta Port Act to mean that the second part of the clause refers to works necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act without the limits of the Calcutta Port. 2. The court held that the establishment of a Dock at Haldia was for the purposes of the Calcutta Port Act as it would improve the condition of the Calcutta Port in respect of import and export of goods. 3. The court held that Section 58(1) of the Calcutta Port Act did not exclude the operation of the Land Acquisition Act, but instead invoked and included the same. 4. The court held that the State Government was entitled to acquire land for a public purpose, although that purpose might be a purpose under the Calcutta Port Act, as the Land Acquisition Act was applicable for the acquisition of land for public purposes. 5. The court held that the absence of a prior declaration by the Central Government under Section 58(1) did not render the notification under Section 4 issued by the State Government illegal, as the purpose for which the land was proposed to be acquired was a public purpose.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the lower court quashing the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court also discharged the Rule obtained by the respondents and dismissed the application under Article 226 of the Constitution.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta and it is directed against an order dated October 3, 1969 of D. Basu, J. By the said order Civil Rule No. 2204 (W) of 1967 out of which this appeal arises, was made absolute.
( 2 ) THE State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, being notification No. 12548 L. A. (P. W.) dated July 28, 1967 in respect of several plots of land belonging to different persons and measuring 26. 15 acres. The land of the respondents Nos. 1 to 15 who were the petitioners in the Rule out of which this appeal arises, has also been included in the notification. It is stated in the notification that the said 26. 15 acres of land is likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, for the establishment of Haldia Dock at the expenses of the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta.
( 3 ) THE respondents and other groups of persons challenged the legality and validity of the notification by separate petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereupon a number of Rules were issued on the said petitions including the said Civil Rule No. 2204 (W) of 1967. It appears from the judgment of D. Basu, J. that at the hearing of the Rules the following points were urged on behalf of the respondents and the petitioners in different Rules :- (I) Each of the petitioners whose lands are sought to be acquired under the impugned notification, personally cultivates his land and that the quantity in possession of each being less than the ceiling laid down in the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Ac'. 1953 such land cannot be acquired unless the law relating to the acquisition of such land provides for payment of compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof as provided for in the proviso to Article 31-A (1) of the Constitution. (II) There were certain irregularities in the matter of hearing objections under Section 5-A (2) of the Land Acquisition Act which vitiated the Acquisition proceedings. (III) The impugned notification is invalid in the absence of a declaration by the Central Government as required to be made under Section 58 (1) of the Calcutta Port Act, 1890. (IV) The acquisition of land for a Dock is a purpose of the Union and that the Slate Government is not competent to acquire ihe land on behalf of the Union.
( 4 ) D. Basu, J. overruled all the points excepting point No, 3 namely, that the notification is invalid in the absence of a declaration by the Central Government under Section 58 (1) of the Calcutta Port Act. Section 58 provides as follows :-"58 (1) When any land or building is required for the purposes of this Act. the Central Government may declare that the land or building is required for a public purpose and may cause proceedings to be taken for obtaining possession of the same for the Central Government and for determining the compensation to be paid to the parties interested, according to any law in force for the acquisition of land for public purposes. (2) On payment by the Commissioners of the compensation payable under such law, and of the charges reasonably incurred by the Collector in respect of proceedings thereunder, such land or building shall vest in them for the purposes of this Act. "
( 5 ) D. Basu, J. was of the view that without a declaration by the Central Government under Section 58 (1) acquisition of land by the State Government for the Calcutta Port under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act would be illegal. The respondents relied on a delegation of the power of the Central Government under Article 258 (I) of the Constitution under which the President of India has entrusted the Government of West Bengal with their consent, the functions of the Central Government under the Land Acaquition Act in relation to the acquisition of land for the purpose of the Union. D. Basu, J. however, held that the delegation of the power under the Land Acquisition
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
