HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji
SACHINDRA MOHAN NANDY - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Civil Revn. 4297 Of 1960
Decided On : AUGUST 30, 1962
LAND ACQUISITION - WEST BENGAL LAND (REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION) ACT, 1948 - APPLICABILITY TO CHANDERNAGORE - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ARTICLE 14, 19, 31 - CHANDERNAGORE MERGER ACT, 1954 - SECTIONS 17, 18 - CHANDERNAGORE (ASSIMILATION OF LAWS) ACT, 1959 - SECTION 8 - CHANDERNAGORE (ADMINISTRATION) REGULATION, 1952 - CLAUSE 8 - CONSTITUTION (FOURTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1955 - ARTICLE 31(1), (2) - REASONABLENESS - EQUALITY BEFORE LAW - EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners from Chandernagore challenged the validity of a requisition of land under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, claiming that the Act should be excluded from what was formerly known as the French Chandernagore, but now an integral part of the territory of the independent Republic of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, being a general law immediately before the appointed date, the 2nd October, 1954, applies to Chandernagore on its merger with West Bengal. The Court further held that the Act was not unconstitutional as it did not violate Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and that the equal protection of laws or equality before the laws between Chandernagore and the rest of West Bengal was guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 is applicable to Chandernagore? 2. Whether the Act is unconstitutional? 3. Whether the equal protection of laws or equality before the laws between Chandernagore and the rest of West Bengal is guaranteed by the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 is applicable to Chandernagore as it is a general law that extends to the whole of West Bengal and is not limited in time or area. 2. The Court held that the Act is not unconstitutional as it does not violate Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and that the equal protection of laws or equality before the laws between Chandernagore and the rest of West Bengal is guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. The Court held that the equal protection of laws or equality before the laws between Chandernagore and the rest of West Bengal is guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) IF France had once been the inspiration of European culture, French Chandernagore can at least sun be described as a prolific source here of Indian Constitutional law. Numerous cases have come to the Court from what used to be the French Settlement of Chandernagore and their decisions now enrich the constitutional law of India. The petitioners in this case from Chandernagore challenge the validity of a requisition of land under Section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act of 1948 (West Bengal Act II of 1948 ). If the decayed City gates of former French Chandernagore still display the three famous ideals of the French Republic from out of the French Revolution, "liberte, Egalite and. Fraternite", this petition from Chandernagore, by a strange irony of fate, claims neither equality, nor fraternity with the rest of India. This petition claims that this West Bengal statute should be excluded from what was formerly known as the french Chandernagore, but now an integral part of the territory of the independent Republic of India.
( 2 ) THE orders of requisition against which the present complaint is made in the petition are issued by the collector of Hooghly dated the 9th September, 1960 and 10th October, 1960. They are issued under Section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. Each of them recites that in the opinion of the Collector of Hooghly it is necessary for the purpose of maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the com. inanity and for providing proper facilities for transport, communication, irrigation, drainage etc. for extension of Sub-Divisional Hospital, at Chandernagore to requisition the lands described there, it recites also the Notification No. 3775 L. A. (P. W. dated 11-548) published in the Calcutta Gazette Part I, of the 27th May, 1948 at page 682, which authorises the Collector of Hooghly to exercise the power conferred by Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1948. After recital of these facts the Collector issues the order for requisition.
( 3 ) MR. Qutta, the learned Advocate appearing tor tne Petitioners challenges the order of requisition on the ground that the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, has not been introduced to Chandernagore, According to his submission the only door by which this pre-Constitution West Bengal statute could nave entered Chandernagore is Section 17 of the Chandernagore Merger Act, 1954 (Act 36 of 1954 of Indian Parliament), mat section provides as follows:--"17. Extension of laws to Chandernagore All laws which immediately before the appointed day extend to, or are in force in, the State of West Bengal generally shall, as from that day, extend to, or, as the case may be, come into force in, Chandernagore. " (Mr. Dutta's main argument on this point is that this west Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act of 1948 is not a law which answers the test of this word 'generally employed in Section 17 of the Act as quoted above. No doubt the expression used is 'all laws'. Obviously all laws are not extended which are not of "general" application, such as the Calcutta Improvement Act or the Calcutta Municipal Act which apply only to Calcutta. No doubt Section 17 of the Chandernagore Merger Act, 1954 does not lead to that absurd consequence that even the Calcutta Improvement Act and the Calcutta Municipal Act apply to Chandernagore. Mr. Dutta drew inspiration for this point from such decisions of this Court as Tulsi Charan Bairagi v. Debendra Nath Sil, 1958 (1) Cal LJ 149. It was held that neither the Calcutta Thika Tenancy. Act of 1949 nor tne West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act was an Act applicable generally all over West Bengal as contemplated in Section 17 of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act Of 1954, and, therefore, those statutes did not extend to Chandernagore. The basis of the view expressed there is that the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act was applicable only to
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.