Back
1965 Supreme(Cal) 176
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
H. K. Bose, B. C. Mitra
CHIRKUT TEWARI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 526 Of 1961 (Mandamus Appeal)
Decided On : JULY 14, 1965
APURBADHAN MUKHERJI, Arun Kumar Dutt, DHRUBA MUKHERJI, N.C.CHAKRAVARTI, Nanda Lal Pal, RABINDRA NARAYAN CHAKRAWORTY
The acquisition of land for the construction of a Public Hall and buildings for cultural and social works by the Hooghly Kristi Parishad, a company, is valid and binding, provided that the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act specifies the purpose for which the land is needed and the agreement between the State Government and the Parishad provides for the time within which and the conditions on which the work shall be executed and maintained and the terms on which the public shall be entitled to use the work.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 4, 6, 39, 40, 41 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 226 - PUBLIC PURPOSE - COMPANY - DECLARATION - NOTIFICATION - CONSENT - AGREEMENT - RULES AND REGULATIONS - SATISFACTION OF STATE GOVERNMENT - ELECTION OF REMEDIES - WRIT PETITION - PUBLIC HALL - CULTURAL AND SOCIAL WORKS - HOOGHLY KRISTI PARISHAD - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC HALL AND BUILDINGS FOR CULTURAL AND SOCIAL WORKS - VALIDITY OF DECLARATION AND NOTIFICATION - SATISFACTION OF STATE GOVERNMENT - VALIDITY OF AGREEMENT - ELECTION OF REMEDIES BY FILING PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE ACT - WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a minor, claimed to be the owner and in actual possession of the land in question. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published for acquisition of the said land for the construction of a Public Hall and buildings for cultural and social works of the Hooghly Kristi Parishad. The appellant filed an objection under Section 5-A of the Act, before the Land Acquisition Collector, Hooghly. A Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Calcutta Gazette. The appellant filed a petition for a reference under Section 18 of of the Act to Court, for determination of the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation and other connected matters. The appellant thereafter, moved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the land was not released from the acquisition proceedings, and obtained a rule nisi, which was discharged by Banerjee, J.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was valid and binding and that the acquisition proceedings were not invalid on the ground of payment of compensation by a company for whom land was required. The Court further held that the agreement between the State Government and the Parishad was valid and that the acquisition proceedings were not invalid for non-compliance with Sections 39, 40 and 41 of the Act. The Court also held that the appellant was not debarred from seeking relief in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, because he filed a petition under Section 18 of the Act, for a reference to Court of his claim for enhancement of the compensation awarded.
Issues: 1. Whether the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was valid and binding? 2. Whether the acquisition proceedings were invalid on the ground of payment of compensation by a company for whom land was required? 3. Whether the agreement between the State Government and the Parishad was valid? 4. Whether the acquisition proceedings were invalid for non-compliance with Sections 39, 40 and 41 of the Act? 5. Whether the appellant was debarred from seeking relief in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, because he filed a petition under Section 18 of the Act, for a reference to Court of his claim for enhancement of the compensation awarded?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was valid and binding as it specified for what particular purpose the land was needed, namely, for construction of staff quarters, hostel buildings and play ground of the Mission which is a company. 2. The acquisition proceedings were not invalid on the ground of payment of compensation by a company for whom land was required as the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act made it clear that the expenses of acquisition were to be paid by the Parishad. 3. The agreement between the State Government and the Parishad was valid as it provided for the time within which and the conditions on which the work shall be executed and maintained and the terms on which the public shall be entitled to use the work. 4. The acquisition proceedings were not invalid for non-compliance with Sections 39, 40 and 41 of the Act as there was sufficient evidence of an enquiry having been made by the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act and the appellant was represented at the hearing of the objections by the Collector. 5. The appellant was not debarred from seeking relief in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, because he filed a petition under Section 18 of the Act, for a reference to Court of his claim for enhancement of the compensation awarded as the appellant had not raised the contentions raised in the writ petition before the trial Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and each party was directed to pay its own costs.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from a judgment and order of Banerjee J. , dated September 11, 1961, whereby a rule nisi obtained by the appellant, on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, was discharged. A society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and known as Hooghly Kristi Parishad (hereinafter referred to as the Parishad) required some land for its activities. The appellant claims to be the owner and as such in actual possession of C. S. plots Nos. 3367 and 3368, which together cover an area of more or less. 086 acres. These plots are situated in the town of Chinsurah, and it is alleged by the appellant, that they are contiguous to all routes of buses and other communications. The appellant is a minor and it is claimed that he is maintained by his father and natural guardian Jagannath Tewari, out of the income of the said properties.
( 2 ) A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated July 11, 1956, was published for acquisition of the said land. In this notification it was staled that the land was likely to be needed for a public purpuse, namely, the construction of a Public Hall and buildings for cultural and social works of the Hooghly Kristi Parishad. It was also stated that the said land was likely to be needed for the public purpose at the expense of the Hooghly Kristi Parishad. The appellant thereupon filed an objection under Section 5-A of the Act, before the Land Acquisition Collector, Hooghly. The grounds of the objection, inter alia, were that the acquisition proceedings were commenced mala fide, as there was dispute and enmity between the appellant and one Nityagopal Dey, one of the members of the said Parishad. Suits were filed to oust the appellant from the said land and Dey, having lost in all the suits, purported to make an ostensible gift to the said Parishad of the plots of land in question by the acquisition proceedings. The next ground of objection was that the purpose of the acquisition was not a public purpose, and that the said Parishad was not in need of any land as it was in possession of sufficient land. The next ground was that there was no need of a Public Hall as there were several such halls and libraries, which could be and were used whenever required.
( 3 ) BY a letter dated September 20, 1956 the Collector, Hooghly, fixed September 26, 1956, for hearing of the objections before the Special Land Acquisition Collector Hooghly. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Calcutta Gazette on January 22, 1959. On February 23, 1959, the Collector, Hooghly, issued a notice under Section 9 of the Act, stating therein that the Government Intended to take possession of the land and that claims for compensation might be made to the Collector. On March 20, 1959, the appellant filed an objection before the Land Acquisition Collector against the said notice. By a notice dated June 2, 1959, the appellant was informed that an award of compensation had been made by the Collector on June 1, 1959, and that a sum of Rs. 4,995. 31 np. was payable to him as such compensation. The appellant was called upon to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector personally or by agent if he was willing to accept the said compensation. The appellant was not satisfied with the award of compensation and filed a pelition for a reference under Section 18 of of the Act to Court, for determination of the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation and other connected matters, by a memorandum dated August 10, 1959 the appellant was directed to vacate the land and to deliver vacant possession on August 28, 1959 at 11 a. m. to Kanungo, D. L. Chakravarty. This was followed by a written representation dated August 16, 1959, on behalf of the appellant to the Collector of Hooghly, that the acquisition proceedings were bad, firstly, because the said Parishad was not a company, secondly because the acquisit
