Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
B. N. Banerjee
PRAMATHA NATH TALUKDAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Civil Revn. 680 (W) Of 1962
Decided On : JANUARY 22, 1963
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - OBJECTION - HEARING - PUBLIC PURPOSE - AGREEMENT - TERMS OF USE - VALIDITY - ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR RAMKRISHNA MISSION - HELD, ACQUISITION VALID.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Pramatha Nath Talukdar, is the owner of Plot No. 125, measuring 16 acres, in Mouza Ukhila-Paikapara, District 24-Parganas. By a notification, dated July 22, 1961, about 14.11 acres of land, including the aforesaid plot belonging to the petitioner, was notified for acquisition, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894). Ram Krishna Mission (hereinafter referred to as the Mission) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act (21 of 1860) and the object of the society, inter alia, is to impart and promote the study of Vedanta and its principles as propounded by Sri Ramkrishna and of Comparative Theology in its widest form and also to propagate religious, social and educational teachings and activities for the benefit of the public.
Finding of the Court:
The petitioner objected to the notification, under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, inter alia, on the grounds that the proposed acquisition was unnecessary for the alleged purposes of any of the purposes mentioned in the notification and was solely for the private purposes of the Mission. The other objection urged by the petitioner was that the Mission possessed other lands at its disposal in Village Ukhila-Paikpara and in contiguous villages, not as yet utilised, and it was unnecessary to acquire other plots of land for its purposes. The petitioner further stated in the said affidavit that there was no hearing on 17-11-1961 and that the alleged Report was prepared even before any alleged hearing of the objectors.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard on his objections to the Land Acquisition notification? 2. Whether the acquisition of land was for a public purpose or would not benefit the public? 3. Whether the agreement between the State Government and the Mission was invalid inasmuch as the terms on which the public would be entitled to use the constructions and works to be done on the acquired land were not set out in the said document?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard on his objections to the Land Acquisition notification. The order-sheet no doubt contains the statement -- "heard objections" against the date November 22, 1961. That merely proves that the order-sheet was not maintained properly. When the hearing of the objection was postponed on November 11, 1961, the order of adjournment was noted in the order-sheet on November 14, 1961. The fact that objectors were heard on November 17, 1961, was recorded in the order sheet on November 22, 1961, when the report was prepared. 2. The acquisition of land was for a public purpose or would benefit the public. The word "public purpose" has been defined in the Land Acquisition Act in an inclusive manner and merely says: "the expression public purpose includes the provision of village-sites in districts in which the appropriate Government shall have declared by notification in the official Gazette that it is customary for the Government to make such provision." 3. The agreement between the State Government and the Mission was not invalid inasmuch as the terms on which the public would be entitled to use the constructions and works to be done on the acquired land were set out in the said document. An agreement similar to the present one came up for consideration before Bose, C. J. and G. K. Mitter, J. in Appeal No. 111 of 1958 (Ram Kumar Agarwalla v. State of West Bengal -- unreported, now ) and his Lordship the Chief Justice, upheld the agreement with the following observations:
Final Decision: Rule discharged with costs, hearing fee being assessed at 6 gold mohurs -- one-half of which shall be paid to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 together and the other half to respondent No. 6.
( 1 ) THE petitioner, Pramatha Nath Talukdar, is the owner of Plot No. 125, measuring. 16 acres, in Mouza Ukhila-Paikapara, District 24-Parganas.
( 2 ) BY a notification, dated July 22, 1961, about 14. 11 acres of land, including the aforesaid plot belonging to the petitioner, was notified for acquisition, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894 ). A material portion from the said notification is set out below :"whereas it appears to the Governor that land is likely to be needed for a public purpose rot being the purpose of the Union, namely, for construction of staff quarters, hostel building and play ground of the Ramkrishna Mission, in the village of Ukhila Paikapara, jurisdiction list No. 56, Police Station Sonarpur, District 24-Parganas, it is hereby notified that a piece of land comprising Cadastral Survey plots (numbers of plots set out in the notification omitted) and measuring more or less 14. 11 acres, is likely to be needed for the aforesaid public purpose at the expense of the Ramkrishna Mission, within the aforesaid village Ukhila-Paikapara. "
( 3 ) RAM Krishna Mission (hereinafter referred to as the Mission) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act (21 of 1860) and the object of the society, inter alia, is to impart and promote the study of Vedanta and its principles as propounded by Sri Ramkrishna and of Comparative Theology in its widest form and also to propagate religious, social and educational teachings and activities for the benefit of the public. It is undisputed that of late the Mission has acquired, by private purchase or by acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, a very large tract of land at a place called Narendrapur, almost contiguous to the plots under acquisition in the present proceeding, and has already utilised part thereof in the construction of educational institutions and play grounds etc.
( 4 ) THE petitioner objected to the notification, under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, inter alia, on the grounds that the proposed acquisition was unnecessary for the alleged purposes of any of the purposes mentioned in the notification and was solely for the private purposes of the Mission. The other objection urged by the petitioner was that the Mission possessed other lands at its disposal in Village Ukhila-Paikpara and in contiguous villages, not as yet utilised, and it was unnecessary to acquire other plots of land for its purposes.
( 5 ) IT is alleged, in paragraph 5 of the petition, 'that an undated notice was issued by the respondent Land Acquisition Collector calling upon the petitioner to be present on the spot, on November 11, 1961, for the purpose of an enquiry but there was no enquiry held and no hearing was given to the petitioner in respect of his objections against the proposed acquisition. Thereafter, there were published "in the Calcutta Gazette (Extraordinary), dated October 4, 1962, an agreement, under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of the proposed acquisition, and also a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act.
( 6 ) ON coming to know of the publication of the notification and the declaration in Calcutta (Gazette (Extra-ordinary), the petitioner caused a 'notice, dated November 8, 1962, being sent to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 demanding cancellation and withdrawal of the notification and declaration, but without any effect. On the other hand the respondent Land Acquisition Collector fixed November 11, 1962 as the date for possession and payment of compensation.
( 7 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the quashing of the notifications and declaration referred to above and for an order on the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 commanding them to cancel or revoke the said notifications and declaration and obtained this Rule.
( 8 ) WHEN this matter' was taken up for hearing on December 18, 1962, Mr. Bankim Chandra Dutt, lea
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
