Back
1972 Supreme(Cal) 266
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Anil Kumar Sen
SUDHANSU SEKHAR MAITY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Civil Rule 3302 (W) Of 1969
Decided On : DECEMBER 14, 1972
B.C.Dutt, D.K.Chaudhary, K.P.SINHA, PARIMAL KUMAR DAS GUPTA, S.C.BOSE, SUPROKASH BANERJI
Acquisition of land for the purpose of establishing a subsidiary port is not solely a Union purpose and can be validly acquired by the State Government if duly authorized by the Union Government.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - Public purpose - Establishment of a subsidiary port - Whether a Union purpose - Acquisition by State Government - Validity - Purpose of acquisition - Whether different from the declared purpose - Effect - Colourable exercise of power - Opportunity to object - Denial of copy of Collector's report - Effect - Maintainability of Writ petition - Misjoinder of petitioners and causes of action.
Fact of the Case:
Two notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and two consequent declarations under Section 6 of the said Act are the subject-matter of challenge in this Rule.
Finding of the Court:
1. Acquisition of land for the purpose of establishing a subsidiary port is not solely a Union purpose and can be validly acquired by the State Government if duly authorized by the Union Government. 2. The purpose of acquisition cannot be equated with the declared purpose if the actual purpose is materially different and not supported by the declared purpose. 3. Subsequent use of the acquired land for purposes other than for which they are being acquired would not vitiate the acquisition if the acquisition is otherwise valid. 4. Denial of a copy of the Collector's report to the objectors does not materially affect their right to object as the statute contemplates no second opportunity for making a representation after the enquiry under Section 5-A. 5. A Writ petition challenging two independent acquisition proceedings based on two independent notifications and two independent declarations is not maintainable for misjoinder of petitioners and causes of action unless the petitioners make out a case that they were jointly interested in both the acquisition proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the establishment of a subsidiary port is a Union purpose and can only be acquired by the Union Government? 2. Whether the purpose of acquisition can be different from the declared purpose? 3. Whether subsequent use of the acquired land for purposes other than for which they are being acquired would vitiate the acquisition? 4. Whether denial of a copy of the Collector's report to the objectors materially affects their right to object? 5. Whether a Writ petition challenging two independent acquisition proceedings based on two independent notifications and two independent declarations is maintainable for misjoinder of petitioners and causes of action?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The purpose of acquisition is not solely a Union purpose and can be validly acquired by the State Government if duly authorized by the Union Government. 2. The purpose of acquisition cannot be equated with the declared purpose if the actual purpose is materially different and not supported by the declared purpose. 3. Subsequent use of the acquired land for purposes other than for which they are being acquired would not vitiate the acquisition if the acquisition is otherwise valid. 4. Denial of a copy of the Collector's report to the objectors does not materially affect their right to object as the statute contemplates no second opportunity for making a representation after the enquiry under Section 5-A. 5. A Writ petition challenging two independent acquisition proceedings based on two independent notifications and two independent declarations is not maintainable for misjoinder of petitioners and causes of action unless the petitioners make out a case that they were jointly interested in both the acquisition proceedings.
Final Decision: Rule discharged.
( 1 ) TWO notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and two consequent declarations under Section 6 of the said Act are the subject-matter of challenge in this Rule.
( 2 ) IT would be necessary to set out the facts in short which are as follows. On May 5, 1959 a notification was issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the said Act. This notification merely recited that some land in the District of Midnapore is likely to be needed for a public purpose viz. , establishment of a subsidiary port at the mouth of Haldia river. This notification further authorised the Engineers of the Commissioners for the port of Calcutta and the Local Officers for the time being engaged on the undertaking to enter upon and survey land and do all further acts required for the proper execution of their work. The notification further laid down the route for the survey through the sixty-eight villages chronologically set out in the said notification. One of such villages is mouja Hatiberia Police Station Sutahata, District Midnapore. This notification was issued in terms of paragraph 13 and in form 2 of the executive instructions contained in the West Bengal Land Acquisition Manual, 1951 Part I. Obviously, the notification was made to authorise local survey on a preliminary investigation for drawing up the scheme of a proposed project of establishment of a port subsidiary to the port of Calcutta.
( 3 ) AS a result of the said investigation a proposed scheme was drawn up which was divided into five phases contemplated for its completion. Acquisitions were being made of lands covered by respective phases as and when works on those phases were being taken up by the requiring authority viz. , the Commissioners for the port of Calcutta. Accordingly, on August 25, 1967 two notifications were issued again under Section 4 of the said Act. The first bearing No. 13998 L. A. was in respect of several plots set out in the notification in mouja Hatiberia Police Station Sutahata covering an area of 101. 42 acres. The second one bearing No. 13991 L. A. was in respect of several other plots of the same mouja covering an area of 89. 75 acres. Both these two notifications recited that the plots notified were likely to be needed for a public purpose viz. , for the establishment of Haldia Dock at the expense of the Commissioners for the port of Calcutta.
( 4 ) ON the issue of the said notifications under Section 4 notices inviting objections under Section 5-A of the said Act were also issued. Objections were entertained including one dated December 14. 1969 by or on behalf of the petitioners and others. An enquirv under Section 5-A was held on June 3, 1968 by the Special Land Acquisition Collector himself who submitted a report recommending overruling of the objections taken. The State Government accepted the recommendations and by an order dated November 4, 1968 overruled all objections. Consequently two declarations under Section 6 of the said Act one dated November 20, 1968 and the other dated November 25, 1968 covering the plots specified in the notifications under Section 4 were issued and were published in the Calcutta Gazette dated December 28, 1968. These two notifications under Section 4 and the two consequent declarations under Section 6 are the subject-matter of challenge in this Rule obtained by the sixty-one petitioners.
( 5 ) THE Rule is being contested by respondents 1 to 4 who are the State of West Bengal and its Local Authorities and also by the added respondent No. 5 viz. , the Commissioners for the port of Calcutta who are the requiring authorities for this acquisition. Two sets of affidavits have been filed by them.
( 6 ) MR. Sinha appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised four points in support of this Rule. In the first place, he has contended that establishment of a dock or a port is a Union purpose and for such a purpose the State Government c
