High Court Of Calcutta
Bimal Chandra Basak
SAKTIPADA MANDAL - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR, DISTRICT HOOGHLY - Respondent
CR 19844 (W) Of 1975
Decided On : 01/20/1976
LAND REQUISITION - WEST BENGAL LAND (REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION) ACT, 1948 - SECTION 3(1) - Order of requisition of land for excavation of canal under Section 3(1) of the Act challenged - Whether the order was passed after due application of mind and whether the purpose of requisition was within the scope of the Act - Whether the principles of natural justice were violated due to non-grant of opportunity of hearing before passing the order.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged an order of requisition of land under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, for the excavation of a canal under the Kangsabati Project. The petitioners contended that the order was passed without due application of mind, that the purpose of requisition was not within the scope of the Act, and that the principles of natural justice were violated due to non-grant of opportunity of hearing before passing the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order was passed after due application of mind and that the purpose of requisition was within the scope of the Act. The court further held that the principles of natural justice were not violated as the Act did not contemplate giving of a notice before an order of requisition is passed.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of requisition was passed after due application of mind? 2. Whether the purpose of requisition was within the scope of the Act? 3. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated due to non-grant of opportunity of hearing before passing the order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order was passed after due application of mind as the authority concerned had formed the requisite opinion that the requisition of the land was necessary for the purpose of providing proper facilities for irrigation/drainage in connection with the Kangsabati Project. 2. The court held that the purpose of requisition was within the scope of the Act as it was for the purpose of providing proper facilities for irrigation/drainage, which is one of the objects specified in Section 3(1) of the Act. 3. The court held that the principles of natural justice were not violated as the Act did not contemplate giving of a notice before an order of requisition is passed.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and discharged the Rule.
( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging an order of requisition of land under Section 3 (1) of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) passed by the respondent No. 1. The petitioners' case as made out in the petition is as follows : the petitioners are inhabitants of the village named Anur situated in the district of Hooghly on the border line of the district of Bankura. The said village was a non-irrigated area and there was a lot of difficulties in cultivation of paddy. On the representation of the villagers of the said village, the State Government has installed, about 8 years ago, a deep tube well in the northern part of the village for irrigation facilities in the said village. It is stated that the said deep tube well is the only source of irrigation in the said village and because of the said tube well, the taxes are being regularly collected by the State Government from the said villagers. The lands which are provided with the irrigation facilities from the said tube well have been set out in the petition. It is alleged that the Government of West Bengal has brought out a scheme of digging a canal from the river Kangsabati which is popularly known as Kangsabati Project. The canal dug out from the river Kangsabati has been numbered as canal No. 25 from which various sub-canals are being taken inside the village of that part of the district of Hooghly and also Bankura. One of such sut-can-nals has now been determined to be taken through the area where the aforesaid deep tube well was installed. It is alleged that excavation of the canal would undoubtedly provide irrigation facilities to the villagers but not better than the deep tube well. It is alleged that from the deep tube well, water is available throughout the year, whereas in the case of canal it will be a case of regulated and limited supply of water and that also not throughout the year. It is alleged that the decision of the Government to remove the deep tube well is detrimental and prejudicial to the interest of the villagers. The villagers including the petitioners met the Block Development Officer. Goghat, Hooghly and represented before him whereby they demanded a change of the route of the said canal so that the areas where the deep tube well is already providing sufficient irrigation facilities are not affected. It appears that by his letter dated 28th February, 1973, the Block Development Officer forwarded the mass petition submitted by the cultivators of the Anur Deep Tube Well Centre to the Executive Engineer, Kangsabati Project. In the said letter he expressed his opinion that the existing alignment of the proposed sub-canal falls within command area of Anur Deep Tube Well Centre and in the event of execution of the same through the said alignment, good quality multiple cropped agricultural lands will be affected. The Block Development Officer also requested the Executive Engineer to consider the case and arrange change of alignment suitably to avoid the common area of the Deep Tube Well Centre as far as possible for more agricultural production. It further appears that there were further representations to that effect including a representation by one Nemai Chandra Mondal and one Chandi Das Mandal who are Government nominees to the Irrigation Committee of the said deep tube well, It appears that the Assistant Engineer, Agri-Irrigation Hooghly, II, Arambagh, also wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer, Kangsabati Project Bishnupur Division on 9th October, 1975 stating that it has been reported that the Executive Engineer is going to excavate a drainage channel from the main canal of Kangsabati river which is to be passed through commanding area of Anur Deep Tube Well Centre. In that event the Assistant Engineer requested the Executive Engineer to look into the matter personally so that the alignment of
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.