Back
High Court Of Calcutta
AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA , K. M. YUSUF
RATAN CHAND BURMAN - Appellant
Versus
CHAIRMAN, CALCUTTA IMPROVEMENT TRUST - Respondent
Appeal 114 Of 1981
Decided On : 08/03/1990
CALCUTTA IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1911 - SECTION 45 - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 11A - DELAY IN ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS - ABANDONMENT OF SCHEME - EFFECT - ACQUISITION NOTICES QUASHED - PUBLIC INTEREST VS INDIVIDUAL RIGHT OF CITIZEN - WEIGHING OF FACTORS.
Fact of the Case:
CIT issued notices in 1962 under Section 45 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911, proposing to acquire land for a street scheme. The Trust, the owner of the land, objected to the acquisition and requested exemption under Section 78 of the Act. CIT did not respond. The Trust made several representations and inquiries about the status of the scheme but received no satisfactory response. In 1978, the Trust filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings on various grounds, including delay, colourable exercise of powers, and malafide. The High Court found that there was inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of CIT and that the conduct of CIT could not be condoned. The High Court directed that the acquisition proceedings be completed within one year from the date of the judgment, failing which the acquisition proceedings would stand quashed.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that there was inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of CIT and that the conduct of CIT could not be condoned. The High Court also found that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed according to the provisions of the amended Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in acquisition proceedings was inordinate and unexplained? 2. Whether the conduct of CIT was colourable exercise of power? 3. Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed according to the provisions of the amended Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 4. Whether the acquisition notices should be quashed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the delay in acquisition proceedings was inordinate and unexplained. The High Court noted that CIT did not provide any satisfactory explanation for the delay, despite several representations and inquiries made by the Trust. The High Court also noted that the acquisition proceedings had been pending for over 26 years, which was an unreasonable delay. 2. The High Court held that the conduct of CIT was colourable exercise of power. The High Court noted that CIT had failed to take any steps to implement the street scheme for over 26 years. The High Court also noted that CIT had not responded to the Trust's representations and inquiries about the status of the scheme. The High Court concluded that CIT's conduct was arbitrary and unreasonable. 3. The High Court held that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed according to the provisions of the amended Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court noted that Section 11A of the amended Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provides that the Collector shall make an award within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration. The High Court noted that the declaration in this case was published in 1962, and that no award had been made within two years. The High Court concluded that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. 4. The High Court held that the acquisition notices should be quashed. The High Court noted that the delay in acquisition proceedings was inordinate and unexplained, that the conduct of CIT was colourable exercise of power, and that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. The High Court concluded that the acquisition notices were invalid and should be quashed.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the lower court, and made the Rule Nisi absolute. The High Court issued appropriate writs quashing the acquisition notices and the acquisition proceedings.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from a judgment and order dated 26/09/1980 as well as an order dated 27/03/1981 of a learned single Judge of this Court on a writ petition filed by the appellants challenging the validity of notices dated 29/04/1962 issued ud under Section 45 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1911 Act") proposing to acquire land specified in such notices for the purpose of carrying out a Street Scheme being Street Scheme No. LXXXIX (Bentinck Street, Lower Chitpur Road) in the City of Calcutta. By the judgment and order dated 26/09/1980 the learned single Judge after recording certain findings directed that all acquisition proceedings in respect of the Street Scheme must be completed at least within a period of one year from the date of the judgment. He further directed that on the failure of the concerned authorities to complete such acquisition proceedings, the acquisition proceedings in so far as they related to the appellants' properties should stand quashed. This judgment is the principal judgment. Subsequently the matter was mentioned before the learned Judge on 27/03/1981 whereupon certain consequential directions were given for the purpose of carrying out the order dated 26/09/1980. As such it is the validity of the judgment and order dated 26/09/1980 which really requires consideration in this appeal.
( 2 ) BEFORE we look at the facts, it is necessary to refer to certain statutory provisions which are relevant for deciding this appeal. Section 69 of 1911 Act empowers Calcutta Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as CIT) to acquire land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for carrying out any of the purposes of the 1911 Act. The Land Acquisition Act under went substantial amendments in 1984. The amendment which is important in the present context is the introduction of Section 11a in the Land Acquisition Act 1984 which is in the following terms:-" 11a. Period within which an award shall be made. The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no Award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse; provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the Commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 the awards shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. "
( 3 ) NOW briefly the facts. The appellants are the Trustees of a Public Charitable Trust called "d. P. Mucker Charitable Trust" (hereinafter referred to as "the Trust" ). The Trust is the owner of 9 premises being premises Nos. 77, 77/1, 77/1/1, 77/1/2, 77/l/3, 77/2, 78, 78/1 and 78/2, Bentinck Street, Calcutta (collectively referred to as "the premises" ).
( 4 ) ON 29/11/1962 Calcutta Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as "cit") through its Chairman caused notices to be served on the Trust under Section 45 of 1911 Act proposing to acquire the land comprised in the premises. These are the notices which have been challenged in the writ petition and we shall refer to them as "the impugned notices".
( 5 ) THE Trust by its Advocate's letter dated 23/02/1963 made a representation to CIT applying for exempting the premises from acquisition under Section 78 of the 1911 Act and also requesting that the representation may be treated as its formal objection to the impugned notices. There was no response from CIT to the said representation.
( 6 ) THE appellants have stated that subsequently searches were made regarding the particulars of the Street Scheme No. LXXXIX and they came to know that for implementing the same only a small portion of the premises was required, namely a strip of about 50 feet wide land on the road-side of the premises.
( 7 ) IT appears from the records that CIT did not take any steps towards implementation of the Scheme. The Trust wrote 3 letters to the Chairman
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
