Back
High Court Of Calcutta
A. N. Sen
P.K.SHAIKH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Matter 264 Of 1966
Decided On : 03/04/1975
LAND ACQUISITION - Calcutta Improvement Act - Scheme No. 103 - Acquisition of Premises No. 12/8a, Lindsay Street - Petitioner's Claim as Tenant - Non-Service of Notice under Section 9(3) of Land Acquisition Act - Validity of Acquisition Proceeding and Award - Interpretation of Statutory Provisions.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, claiming to be a tenant in Premises No. 12/8a, Lindsay Street, challenged the validity of the acquisition proceeding and award for the implementation of Scheme No. 103 under the Calcutta Improvement Act. The petitioner alleged that he was not served with any notice under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act and that the acquisition proceeding was conducted without compliance with statutory formalities.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner had knowledge of the acquisition proceedings and that the statements made in the petition regarding lack of knowledge were untrue. The Court also found that the statutory formalities under the Calcutta Improvement Act had been complied with and that there was no mala fide intention in not serving the petitioner with the notice under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition proceeding and award were valid despite the non-service of notice under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act on the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner's claim as a tenant entitled him to notice under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that non-service of notice under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act does not vitiate the acquisition proceeding or the award. The Court relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Sri Sukdev Saran Dev v. Raja Nripendra Narayan Chandradhvarjee, which held that the failure to give notice under Section 9(3) does not render the whole proceedings null and void. 2. The Court did not decide whether the petitioner was entitled to notice under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, as it found that even if he was entitled to such notice, the non-service of the notice was not mala fide and did not vitiate the acquisition proceeding or the award.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, the rule was discharged, and all interim orders were vacated. There was no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioner obtained the present rule and also an interim order of injunction on the 13th May, 1966.
( 2 ) CALCUTTA Improvement Trust for the improvement of the City prepared a scheme bearing Scheme No. 103 for widening the approach to the Lindsay Street from the side of Free School Street. The said scheme was published under Section 43 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 in May, 1963. The said scheme after the necessary formalities had been complied with, met with the approval of the State Government. For the purpose of implementing the said scheme it became necessary to acquire certain properties in Lindsav Street. One of the properties acquired in Lindsav Street is Premises No. 12/8-A Lindsay Street. It appears that premises No. 12/8a, Lindsay Street was a tenanted one and one of the tenants under the owner of the said premises was Mrs. A. E. Morrocco. An award was duly made in the said acquisition proceeding and compensation for acquisition of the said premises was awarded to the owner, to the tenant Mrs Morrocco, to one subtenant under Mrs. Morrocco who was carrying on business under Hie name and style of Hollywood Tailors. It also appears that premises No. 12/9a, Lindsay Street had also been acquired for the implementation of the said scheme and an award for compensation has been made in favour of persons entitled to compensation for acquisition of premises No. 12/9a, Lindsay Street. No objection has been raised by the owner, the tenant and the sub-tenant with regard to the validity of the acquisition proceeding and the award made in the said acquisition proceeding.
( 3 ) THE petitioner claims to be a tenant in respect of premises No. 12/8a, Lindsay Street. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a tenant under Mrs. Morrocco and the petitioner as tenant of Mrs. Morrocco has a tailoring shop in the said premises. In support of the case that the petitioner is a tenant under Mrs. Morrocco in respect of a portion of premises No. 12/8a, Lindsay Street, the petitioner has annexed to his petition rent receipts granted by Mrs. Morrocco to him and also receipted electric bills. It is the case of the petitioner that no notice of any kind was ever served on the petitioner and the petitioner had no knowledge of the acquisition proceeding. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner came to know for the first time of the acquisision proceeding and also of the award on the 30th April, 1966 when a police officer came to his shop room and asked him to vacate the shop room on the 11th May, 1966 and deliver vacant possession of the said shop room in his possession to the Board of Trustees of the Calcutta Improvement Trust. The petitioner has made the case in his petition that on being so informed by the police officer the petitioner caused enauiries to be made and was informed by one of the tenants of No. 12/9a, Lindsav Street, viz. . M/s. M. N. Dey and Co. that the said premises had been acquired and notices of such acquisition had been served on the tenants. The petitioner has further alleged in his petition that the said M/s. M. N. Dey and Co. also informed the petitioner that Mrs. Morrocco under whom the petitioner was a tenant had in her petition dated 11th December, 1964 to the respondent No. 3, the Second Land Acauisition Collector, informed him that the petitioner was a tenant under her in the said premises. The petitioner has further stated in his petition that he thereafter proceeded to make various enquiries from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector but the said enquiries were of no use to him. The petitioner has further alleged that the tenant M/s. M. N. Dey and Co. showed to the petitioner the notice dated 30th March. 1966 asking the said tenant to collect the compensation money. The petitioner has alleged in his petition that thereafter on the 4th May, 1966 he again visited the office of the Land Acquisition Collector and on that day he was shown a list of per
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
