The principles for determining compensation as laid down in the Act and in the rules, such as they are, cannot be said to be irrelevant in determining the compensation.

( 1 ) THE subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, is the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Fisheries (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965, hereafter referred to as the Act The appellant is the owner of a Fishery in the District of 24-Par-ganas, and claims to have spent Rs. 15,000/-in repairing embankment and in clearing weeds. He also claims to have spent a large sum of money to make the Fishery fit for pisciculture and also claims to have spent other sums for maintenance of the Fishery.

( 2 ) ON November 11, 1966, he received a Notice that the Fishery had been requisitioned under Section 4 of the Act, directing him to deliver possession of the Fishery to a representative of the Land Acquisition Department on November 13, 1966. Symbolic possession of the Fishery was taken on that date. Thereupon the appellant obtained a rule nisi on a writ petition. This rule was discharged by a judgment and order dated April 17, 1972 which is the subject-matter of this appeal.

( 3 ) THE constitutional validity of the Act is challenged on two main grounds, namely, violation of Article 19 (1) (f) and also Article 31 (2) of the Constitution. The object of the Statute, as it appears from the preamble to the Act, is to provide for the requision and speedy acquisition of fishery for the. purpose of improvement or development of such fishery, and supplying fish to the public therefrom.

( 4 ) SEVERAL points were urged before us by Mr. P. N. Mitra, appearing for the appellant. The first point canvassed was that the Act purports to requisition fish in the fishery, as fish has been included in the definition of "fishery" in Section 2 (3) of the Act It was submitted that fish which was a perishable commodity, could not, from its very nature, be the subject-matter of requisition. Fish was an article, it was submitted the requisition of which would really mean expropriation of the Fish itself. It was contended that once requisitioned, the property in the fish would be lost to the owner for ever, and could not be restored after the period of requisition was over. We are not impressed by this argument of Mr. Mitra. Fish no doubt is a perishable commodity, and once taken out of water it cannot survive for long. But that by itself would not make an order for requisition of fishery illegal. By the Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, acquisition and requisition of property have been included in Entry No. 42 of List III of Schedule VII jto the Constitution. This amendment has conferred jurisdiction upon the State Legislature to make laws relating to acquisition and requisition of property. Fish as defined in the Act is property which is capable of being owned, possessed and transferred and as such it may be the subject-matter of an order of requisition like any other property.

( 5 ) THERE are two other reasons why the contention of Mr. Mitra cannot be accepted. In the first place there is nothing in the order of requisition, to suggest that the State Government has requisitioned the fishery for the purpose of catching and supplying fish to consumers. It may as well be, that the fishery has been requisitioned for the purpose of improvement and development of such fishery, as the Preamble of the Act specified. The State Government may be interested only in rearing the fish by providing better nourishment for the fish in the fishery. It cannot be assumed that the object of the requisition is to catch fish and dispose of the same. In the second place the requisition of a fishery must necessarily include the fish. If the fishery is allowed to be requisitioned without the fish the owner of the fishery would undoubtedly be put to great loss, because while he will not be entitled to any compensation for, the fish, he certainly will not be able to catch all the fish in the fishery before possession is taken by the State Government, nor will he be in a position to catch fish after the order of requis