Back
High Court Of Calcutta
G. N. Ray
JAYANTA KUMAR BANERJEE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. 7694 (W) Of 1979
Decided On : 10/01/1980
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4 - VALIDITY - ANTEDATING - EFFECT - LOCUS STANDI TO CHALLENGE - AGREEMENT FOR SALE - WHETHER CREATES INTEREST IN PROPERTY - RIGHT TO ENFORCE CONTRACT - FRUSTRATION DUE TO ACQUISITION - MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, claiming to have entered into an agreement for sale with the owner of the property, challenged the validity of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging that it was antedated and published in July instead of May as mentioned in the Gazette. The petitioner contended that the antedating was mala fide and intended to defeat their right to enforce the contract for sale.
Finding of the Court:
1. The court held that the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the notification as their right to enforce the contract for sale would be curtailed and the contract would be frustrated if the property was acquired. 2. The court found that the notification under Section 4 was indeed antedated and published in July, not May as mentioned in the Gazette. 3. The court held that the antedating of the Gazette publication was illegal and void, and all actions taken pursuant to it were also illegal and of no consequence.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Whether the notification was valid despite being antedated and published in July instead of May as mentioned in the Gazette.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the notification as they had a right to enforce the contract for sale, which would be curtailed if the property was acquired. The court reasoned that prejudicial affectation of a right should be the test to determine locus standi, not just acquisition of title or interest in the property. 2. The court held that the notification was invalid because it was antedated and published in July instead of May as mentioned in the Gazette. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the sanctity of Gazette publications and the various consequences that follow from them under different statutes. The court also noted that antedating could undermine public faith in the sanctity of Gazette publications.
Final Decision: The court quashed the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and all actions taken pursuant to it, as illegal and void. However, the court stayed the operation of its order for two weeks after the reopening of the court after the long Puja Vacation.
( 1 ) IN this Rule, a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 bearing the date of publication as on May 28, 1979 in the Calcutta Gazette (Extraordinary) issued by the Government of West Bengal, Land Utilisation and Land Reforms and Land Revenue Department in respect of premises No. 4 Middleton Row, Calcutta, measuring more or less 2894 of a hectare (. 7076 of an acre) is under challenge. The petitioner contends that respondent No. 7, Dr. Graham's Homes, Kalimpong, a society registered under the Societies Registration. Act is the owner of the land and building situated at premises No. 4 Middleton Row, Calcutta and the respondent No. 8, Mr. Robert Hamilton Wright was the President and/or Chairman of the said Dr. Graham's Homes at the relevant time and the said Mr. Robert Hamilton Wright represented to the petitioner that he had the authority to conduct the affairs of the respondent Dr. Graham's Homes including negotiations for disposal of its properties and assets The petitioner contends that sometime in of about 1977, certain negotiations took place between the representatives of the respondent Union of India and the sard Dr Graham's Homes regarding purchase of the said premises by the respondent Union of Tndia for the purpose of its Communications Department, but the said negotiations failed. Thereafter, the respondent Dr. Graham's Homes had also negotiated with the Government of West Bengal for the sale of the said property without any substantial result. In or about April, 1978, the petitioner having come to know that the respondent Dr. Graham's Homes was intending to sell all the sard properties, took inspection of the same under a written authority of the said Mr. Robert Hamilton Wright. After the aforesaid inspection the petitioner with intent to purchase the said property, started negotiations with the respondent Mr. Robert Hamilton Wright as the representative of the respondent Dr. Graham's Homes and the said Mr. Robert Hamilton Wright by his letter dated 7th May, 1978 assured the petitioner that he would recommend to the Board of Management of the respondent Dr. Graham's Homes to approve and/or accept the petitioner's offer to purchase' the said property and by letter dated 2nd June, 1978, the respondent Mr. Robert Hamilton Wright acting as the President and Chairman of the said Board confirmed that the Board had agreed to sell the said property to the petitioner and their Advocate had been finalising the draft agreement for sale. At the request of Dr. Graham's Homes and Mr, Robert Hamilton Wright sometime in June 1978 the petitioner agreed to donate a sum of Rs. 3,90,900/- to Or. Graham's Homes and duly communicated the said offer of the petitioner to Mr. Robert Hamilton Wright by a letter dated 9th June, 1978. The said offer for donation was ultimately included in the purchase price as a result of further negotiations and ultimately the petitioner acceded to the request of the respondents Dr. Graham's Homes and Mr. Robert Hamilton Wright to enhance the purchase price to Rs. 36,00,000/-and to pay a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- by way of earnest money.
( 2 ) THE petitioner further contends that some time between August and October, 1978, various draft agreements for sale were prepared and/or considered by the concerned parties and/or their respective Advocates. Ultimately on the top of one of such draft agreement for sale, Mr. Robert Hamilton Wright on October 3, 1978 made an endorsement in his own hand inter alia to the effect that he had studied the said draft and as far as he was concerned it was in order, but he requested his learned Advocate Mr. S. S. Hazra to have a final check on all points as safeguard to their position. It was also indicated that after that Mr. Sen, the learned Solicitor for the petitioner, would draw up the formal agreement on stamped paper for signature by the next week-end. It appears that the draft agreement drawn up by Mr. Sen was forwarded to Mr, S. S, Haz
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
