The West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act is a valid legislation enacted for a public purpose and does not violate Articles 14, 19, or 31 of the Constitution. However, notifications issued under Section 6 and Section 6 read with Section 7 of the Act are invalid if they are not preceded by a proper scheme preparation process and opportunity for objections as required under the Act and the Rules.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate Writ directing the opposite parties to withdraw and/or cancel the orders of acquisition and certain notifications issued under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner of certain plots of lands in Mauza Hatinagar and Mauza Shibpore within the jurisdiction of Berhampore Police Station in the district of Murshidabad. The particulars of such lands are set out in paragraph 5' of the petition. It is alleged that some of these lands are tenanted and some are under cultivation of the petitioner. It is alleged that for some time past certain refugees have been trespassing upon the lands of the petitioner under the authority of the opposite parties and they are cutting down trees and making excavations and are causing damage to the petitioner's lands. It is alleged that on the 30th November, 1950, two notifications, one bearing No. 12676 L. Dev. dated the 16th November, 1950, purported to be made under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act and another bearing No. 12678 L. Dev. also dated the 16th November, 1950, and purporting to be made under Section 6 of the said Act were published in the Calcutta Gazette in respect of the petitioner's lands in the Shibpore Mouza and, on the 15th February 1951, two notifications bearing Nos. 1548 L. Dev. and 1550 L. Dev. both dated the 12th February 1951, purported to be made under sees. 4 and 6 respectively of the said Act were simultaneously published in respect of the petitioner's lands in Mouza Hatinagar. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the opposite party No 2, the Collector for release of the petitioner's lands but this was not done. Demands of justice were made on behalf of the petitioner but with no effect. It is alleged in the petition that possession of the lands is with the petitioner. This fact is however disputed by the opposite parties. As the petitioner has failed to obtain any redress at the hands of the opposite parties, he has moved this Court for the reliefs stated above. On behalf of the opposite parties, the counter-affidavit has been affirmed by one Atul Chandra Bala who is a Kunungo under the Refugee and Rehabilitation Directorate attached to the Murshidabad Collectorate. In paragraph 4 of the said counter-affidavit, it is stated that the proposal for acquisition of certain lands in Mouzas Hatinagar and Shibpore was submitted to the Refugee Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Bengal, by the Collector of Murshidabad, that the schemes in respect thereof were approved by the Land Planning Committee and' that thereafter notifications under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Development and Planning Act were published in the Calcutta Gazette in respect of the above schemes, namely Hatinagar and Shibpore Schemes respectively. On the 26th February 1951, the possession of the lands comprised in the Hatinagar Scheme was taken but out of this area certain portion was released by the District Magistrate after investigation and the rest of the lands including the lands of the petitioner is under acquisition and most of the lands have been, allotted to several displaced agriculturist families who have taken possession of the different plots of lands between the 26th June 1951 and 15th July 1951 and have subsequently constructed houses thereon and brought the agricultural lands under cultivation, and similarly in respect of the Shibpore Scheme also a small portion of the land was released and some portions of the scheme lands have been distributed to the refugees who have also constructed houses thereon and have also brought the agricultural lands under cultivation. In sub-paragraph 5 of paragraph 4, it is stated that it' was subsequently thought desirable to issue a fresh declaration under Section 6 in supersession of the previous declaration under Section 6 in respect of the lands in question and this dec