Back
High Court Of Calcutta
MONORANJAN MALLICK
SURENDRA KUMAR NATHANY - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Matter 177 Of 1988
Decided On : 09/01/1989
LAND ACQUISITION - Requisition and acquisition of property under West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 - Legality - Purpose of requisition - Whether requisition and acquisition of property for accommodation of I.B. Officers and a constable barrack is a valid purpose - Interpretation of Section 3(1) of the 1948 Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, owner of the premises No. 135e, F, G, and H of Shyama Prosad Mukherjee Road, Calcutta, filed a writ petition challenging the purported decision to acquire the property under the Land Acquisition Act or the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, or the West Bengal Premises (Requisition and Control) (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947. The property was under requisition since 1959 under the 1947 Act. After 26 years, the petitioner moved a writ petition seeking acquisition of the property in accordance with law or de-requisition. The State Government failed to take any action within the time specified by the Court, leading to a contempt rule being issued. The Government authorities de-requisitioned the property under Section 10(1) of the 1947 Act and attempted to acquire it under the 1948 Act. The petitioner challenged this action as illegal, arguing that after de-requisitioning, the property could not be acquired.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the State Government had a bona fide intention to acquire the property for a public purpose, namely, the accommodation of I.B. Officers and a constable barrack. However, the Court held that the requisition and acquisition of the property under the 1948 Act were illegal because the purpose of the requisition did not fall within the specified public purposes mentioned in Section 3(1) of the Act. The Court clarified that requisition under Section 3(1) could only be made for the specific purposes mentioned in the Act and that the purpose of the Act was for special requisition to meet specific situations.
Issues: 1. Whether the requisition and acquisition of the property under the 1948 Act were legal. 2. Whether the purpose of the requisition, namely, accommodation of I.B. Officers and a constable barrack, was a valid purpose under Section 3(1) of the 1948 Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the requisition and acquisition of the property under the 1948 Act were illegal because the purpose of the requisition did not fall within the specified public purposes mentioned in Section 3(1) of the Act. 2. The Court interpreted Section 3(1) of the 1948 Act and held that requisition under the provision could only be made for the specific purposes mentioned in the Act and that the purpose of the Act was for special requisition to meet specific situations.
Final Decision: The Court disposed of both writ petitions with the following order: 1. The Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, shall initiate a Land Acquisition proceeding for acquiring the premises under the Land Acquisition Act within three months from the date of the order and complete the acquisition proceeding as expeditiously as possible. 2. The amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- already paid to the petitioner's Advocate shall be kept with the Advocate and invested in a short-term deposit. The amount shall be adjusted with the award to be passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. 3. If the Land Acquisition Collector fails to initiate the proceeding within three months, the respondents shall deliver entire possession of the property to the petitioner, and the petitioner shall refund the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- and interest accrued thereon.
( 1 ) BOTH the matters raise common question of law and facts and have been heard together for reasons of convenience.
( 2 ) THE Matter No. 177 of 1988 has been filed by the owner of the premises No. 135e, F, G and H of Shyama Prosad Mukherjee Road, Calcutta on 15-2-1988 praying for a writ of Mandamus to withdraw, cancel and rescind the purported decision, if there be any, for acquiring the above property either under the Land Acquisition Act or under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 or under the West Bengal Premises (Requisition and Control) (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 and to forthwith give quiet, peaceful and vacant possession of the said property to the petitioners.
( 3 ) THIS writ petition has been filed on the following allegations: the premises No. 135e, F, G and H of Shyama Prosad Mukherjee Road, Calcutta has been kept by the Respondent under' requisition by the requisition order No. 62/ 54 dated May 8, 1959 under S. 2 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947. When even after the expiry of 26 years the Respondent has been using and occupying the property under orders of requisition but has neither de-requisitioned nor acquired the property the petitioners have moved a writ petition being C. O. No. 11759 (W) of 1985 and on hearing both the petitioners and the respondents Mukul Gopal Mukherjee, J. has disposed of the said writ petition by the order dated August 12, 1986 by directing the State Government among others to take necessary steps for acquiring the property in accordance with law within six months from the date pf the order failing which to de-requisition the property.
( 4 ) AS the State Government did not take any step to acquire the property within the period specified in the above order of Mukul Gopal Mukherjee, J. the petitioners moved a contempt Rule before the learned Judge who however granted the State Government three months more time either to acquire the property or to de-requisition it.
( 5 ) FROM the information's available to the petitioners the respondent Government authorities have by an order No. 62/59 dated January 28, 1988 have de-requisitioned the property under S. 10 (1) of the Act of 1947.
( 6 ) BUT when the petitioner made enquiries in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector and wanted to know as to when the respondent would give back possession of the said property the officers informed the petitioners that Government is going to acquire the property either under the Land Acquisition Act or under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948.
( 7 ) THE petitioner challenges the above action of the respondents as illegal and have alleged that after de-requisitioning the property the Respondent cannot acquire the property and consequently prays that a writ of Mandamus as prayed for may be issued and the Respondents be directed to hand over possession of the said property.
( 8 ) AFTER this writ petition has been filed the writ petitioner has moved another writ petition being Matter No. 649 of 1988 on 18-3-1988 and rule has been issued. In that writ petition the following allegations have been made.
( 9 ) AFTER moving the writ petition being Matter No. 177 of 1988 the petitioner has mentioned the matter before Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. and upon prayer of the petitioner, His Lordship has passed an order dated 16-2-1988 in terms of prayer (E) to the writ petition and has also restrained the respondents from taking any steps for requisition or acquisition of the property after making over possession to the petitioner without the leave of the Court. The Respondent State attempted to get the stay of the operation of the order from the learned Judge but failed. As the order had not been complied with the petitioner moved as application for contempt to Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. , who issued the contempt Rule. The Respondents preferred an appeal against the orders of Ajit Kumar
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
