Back
High Court Of Calcutta
SABYASACHI MUKHERJI
BANKU BEHARI DUTT - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Matter 395 Of 1974
Decided On : 05/19/1976
LAND ACQUISITION - Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Vagueness - Declaration under Section 6 - Validity - Opportunity of being heard - Principles of natural justice - Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution - Emergency - Suspension of rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the owner of premises No. 98, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Calcutta, challenged the notification published in the Calcutta Gazette under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act dated 10th September, 1974, on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
1. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was not vague as it clearly stated the purpose of acquisition and a plan was given indicating the premises in question. The purpose of the notification was to carry on preliminary investigation to find out whether the land was adopted for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. 2. The declaration under Section 6 was not invalid because the Collector had not exercised his function properly in making the recommendation under Section 5-A of the Act. The Collector was not obliged to consider whether there were technical reasons for preference of the premises in question unless it was suggested that the preference of the requiring authority was not a genuine preference but was for oblique or mala fide purpose. 3. The petitioner was not entitled to be heard before the State Government took the final decision under Section 6 (1) of the Act. The scheme of the Act specifically excludes any question of hearing or further opportunity at the stage of Section 6 (1). 4. The question of whether Section 6 (1) of the Act was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution could not be considered during the Emergency as the right to move any court for the enforcement of the rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution was suspended.
Issues: 1. Whether the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was vague? 2. Whether the declaration under Section 6 was invalid due to the Collector's failure to exercise his function properly under Section 5-A of the Act? 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to be heard before the State Government took the final decision under Section 6 (1) of the Act? 4. Whether the question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution could be considered during the Emergency?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The purpose of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is to carry on preliminary investigation to find out whether the land was adopted for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. The notification in the instant case clearly stated the purpose of acquisition and a plan was given indicating the premises in question. Therefore, the notification was not vague. 2. The Collector was not obliged to consider whether there were technical reasons for preference of the premises in question unless it was suggested that the preference of the requiring authority was not a genuine preference but was for oblique or mala fide purpose. In the instant case, there was no allegation that the preference alleged by the requiring authority was for any oblique or ulterior purpose. Therefore, the Collector's recommendation for acquisition of the premises in question was valid. 3. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically excludes any question of hearing or further opportunity at the stage of Section 6 (1). The petitioner was not entitled to be heard before the State Government took the final decision under Section 6 (1) of the Act. 4. During the Emergency, the right to move any court for the enforcement of the rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution was suspended. Therefore, the question of whether Section 6 (1) of the Act was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution could not be considered during the Emergency.
Final Decision: The application challenging the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was dismissed. The rule was discharged, and the interim order was vacated.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of premises No. 98, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Calcutta, with all the structures standing thereon. The petitioner states that the said premises is occupied and partly used by the petitioner for his residential purpose and as partly his business purposes. On 8th January, 1974, the petitioner received a notification published in the Calcutta Gazette. The said notification which is annexure B to the petition, inter alia, states as follows:". . . . . . . . . Whereas it appears to the Governor that land is likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, for construction of Mass Rapid Transit System and other connected works relating to the said system from Dum Dum to Tollygunge in the city of Calcutta, it is, hereby notified that piece of land comprising premises Nos. 29 and 98, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road and 1, Mohani Mohan Road, described in Block I and II in the Schedule below altogether measuring, more or less, 0. 0891 hectare (0. 2201 of an acre), are likely to be needed for the aforesaid purpose at the public expenses within the Ward Nos. 73 and 75 of the Calcutta Municipality in the City of Calcutta. This notification is made under the provision of Section 4 of Act I of 1894 read with the said notification to all whom it may concern. A plan of the land may be inspected in the Office of the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, at No. 45, Princep Street (45, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street), Calcutta. In exercise of the powers conferred by the aforesaid section, read with the said notification the Governor is pleased to authorise the officers for the time being engaged in the undertaking, with their servants and workmen, to enter upon and survey the lend and do all other acts required by that section. "
( 2 ) IN the said notification it is stated that the plan of the land might be inspected in the office of the First Land Acquisition Collector. The petitioner duly took inspection of the said plan. According to the petitioner, the plan, as inspected merely indicated the premises sought to be acquired and did not give any details or particulars or specific reasons or cause for which the said premises was being acquired by the respondents. The petitioner, thereafter caused enquiries in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, being the respondent No. 2 herein and the petitioner was informed that the said premises of the petitioner was being acquired for construction of A. C. Plant and other electrical arrangements in connection with the said system. The petitioner received no further information regarding the purpose of such acquisition. The petitioner filed objection on the 12th February, 1974, to the said notification. The petitioner took various objections against said acquisition. The petitioner, however, contended that in the absence of further particulars it was not possible for the petitioner to indicate further objection. The petitioner, however, pointed out that two premises, namely No. 28-A and No. 18 both situated at Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Calcutta, were more suitable for the purpose of A. C. Plant and other electrical arrangments. The petitioner, further, pointed out various other alternative sites were available which would be far more suitable for the purpose of construction of A. C. Plant and other electrical arrangements. Thereafter, there was a hearing on the 19th March, 1974, before the respondent No. 2. It is not necessary to mention the details of hearing but it appears that on or about 19th April, 1974, the petitioner again appeared before the respondent No. 2 and made certain submissions regarding alternative sites. At the said hearing the petitioner again submitted that alternative sites were available and agreed to file further petition showing such alternative sites. Pursuant to the said arrangement, on 27th April, 1974, the petitioner filed further petition along with plans before the respondent No. 2 stating full details of al
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
