The acquisition of land for the settlement of immigrants is a public purpose, and the decision of the Government in this regard is conclusive and cannot be challenged in a court of law.

( 1 ) THIS is an appln. under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the resps. to cancel or recall notfns. NOS. 3642 L. Dev. and 3644 L. Dev. both dated 4-4-1950 issued under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 and also to forbear from giving effect to the said notfns.

( 2 ) THE petnr. is the owner of certain lands appertaining to Cadastral Survey Plot NOS. 389, 390, 391 and 966 at Mouza Manirampur and Thana Barrackpore in the District of 24 Parganas. The petnr. cultivates the said lands and grows various kinds of vegetables thereon and sells the same at the Sadar Bazar, Barrackpore and the sale proceeds of these vegetables are alleged to be the only means of livelihood of the petnr. and his family. The lands in question have been used for the last forty years for growing high class vegetables. The petnr. has also erected a building on the said lands consisting of six rooms out-of which four rooms are let out to tenants and two rooms are occupied by the servants and workmen of the petnr. In that land there is also a cow-shed where the petnr. has kept cattle for the purpose of his cultivation. There are also two tanks on the said land where the petnr. rears fishes for sale and for domestic consumption. There are large numbers of Mango trees, Cocoanut Groves, Jack Fruit trees and Guava trees from the produce of which the petnr. derives a large annual income. As a result of certain officers of the resps having entered into the said, lands and having bored into the subsoil of the said land and having caused extensive damages to the standing crops the patnr. made enquiries and come to know that a Notfn No 3642 L. Dev. appeared in the Calcutta Gazette of 20-4-1950 to the effect that the said lands of the petnr. were likely to be required under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act (Act XXI [21] of 1948 ). The petnr. was, however, not served with any individual notice of the purported acquisition. By another notfn. of the same date (4-4-1950) being no. 3644 L. Dev. and published in the Gazette of the same date (20-4-1950) the said lands were declared to have been acquired by the resp. The petnr made various representations to the resp. in its various depts. against the said proposed requisition but the resp. failed and neglected to consider or accede to those representations and thereby denied justice to the petnr.

( 3 ) MR. 6. P. Kar, learned counsel for the petnr. , Argues that the West Bengal Act is ultra vires and unconstitutional inasmuch as it infringes and is inconsistent with Articles 19 and 31 of the Const. Ind. It is submitted that the Act is discriminatory, expropriatory and constitutes unreasonable interference and imposes unreasonable and unwarranted restrictions on the fundamental rights of the petnr. as citizen, of India to acquire, hold and dispose of property and carry on trade or business

( 4 ) IT is pointed out that the right guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 19 (1) (f) is entire and complete but certain inroads cat be made to the extent provided in Clause (5) of Article 19. It is argued that Article 19 and Article 31 of the Constitution should be read together.

( 5 ) ARTICLE 31 provides: (1) No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. (2) No property movable or immovable including any interest in or in any Co. owned in, any commercial of industrial undertaking shall be taken possession of or acquired for public purposes under any law authorising the taking of such possession or such acquisition unless the law provides for compensation for the property takes possession of or acquired and either fixes the amount of compensation or specifies the principles on which and the manner in which the compensation is to be determined At given.

( 6 ) MR. Kar submits that the West Bengal Act XXI [21] of 1948 contravenes this Article 31 inasmuch as it does not provide for payment of compen