Back
High Court Of Calcutta
M. M. Dutt, Monoj Kumar Mukherjee
NILKAMAL BEZ BORUAH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
FMAT 270 Of 1982
Decided On : 07/13/1982
LAND REQUISITION - WEST BENGAL LAND (REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION) ACT, 1948 - Section 3(1) - Requisition of land for public purpose - Legality and validity of requisition order challenged - Grounds: (i) Non-service of order under Section 3(1) on one of the joint owners; (ii) Pendency of land acquisition proceedings; (iii) Non-compliance with principles of natural justice; and (iv) Absence of formation of opinion by Collector as required under Section 3(1).
Fact of the Case:
Appellants, Nilkamal Bez Boruah and his wife Smt. Sushila Bez Boruah, alleged to have been divorced, challenged an order of requisition under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, requisitioning their land and building for the construction of a house for an institution known as "Urdu Academy". Appellants claimed to have purchased the premises jointly and alleged that the premises were partitioned between them by a consent decree. The requisition order was passed during the pendency of land acquisition proceedings initiated for the acquisition of the same premises for the purpose of constructing a house for the Urdu Academy. Appellants contended that the impugned order was illegal due to non-service on one of the joint owners, pendency of land acquisition proceedings, non-compliance with principles of natural justice, and absence of formation of opinion by the Collector.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned order was not illegal on the grounds alleged by the appellants. The order was served on the durwan of the premises, who was authorized to accept communications on behalf of the appellants, and therefore, service on the durwan amounted to service on both appellants. The pendency of land acquisition proceedings did not render the requisition order illegal, as acquisition and requisition are distinct processes. The Court also held that the requisition of land for the establishment of a power distribution system was a valid public purpose under Section 3(1) of the Act, and that the Collector had formed his own opinion before issuing the requisition order, despite a request from the State Government to take steps for requisition. The Court further held that the Act did not require a hearing to be given to the owner or occupier before the making of an order of requisition, and that the appellants were entitled to make a representation to the respondents, which would be considered.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned requisition order was illegal due to non-service on one of the joint owners? 2. Whether the pendency of land acquisition proceedings rendered the requisition order illegal? 3. Whether the requisition of land for the establishment of a power distribution system was a valid public purpose under Section 3(1) of the Act? 4. Whether the Collector had formed his own opinion before issuing the requisition order? 5. Whether the Act required a hearing to be given to the owner or occupier before the making of an order of requisition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Service of the requisition order on the durwan of the premises, who was authorized to accept communications on behalf of the appellants, amounted to service on both appellants, satisfying the requirement of Section 3(2) of the Act. 2. The pendency of land acquisition proceedings did not render the requisition order illegal, as acquisition and requisition are distinct processes. 3. The requisition of land for the establishment of a power distribution system was a valid public purpose under Section 3(1) of the Act, as it fell within the ambit of maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community. 4. The Collector had formed his own opinion before issuing the requisition order, despite a request from the State Government to take steps for requisition. 5. The Act did not require a hearing to be given to the owner or occupier before the making of an order of requisition, and the appellants were entitled to make a representation to the respondents, which would be considered.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned requisition order was not illegal on the grounds alleged by the appellants.
( 1 ) IN this appeal the appellants, Nilkamal Bez Boruah and his wife Smt. Sushila Bez Boruah, alleged to have been divorced, have preferred this appeal against the judgment of B. C. Ray, J. , whereby the learned Judge discharged the Rule Nisi issued on the application of the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging an order of requisition under Section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act II of 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
( 2 ) THE appellants claimed to have purchased the premises No. 2, Park Lane Calcutta on or about August 9, 1952, with their joint funds. The appellant No. 2, the first wife of the appellant No. 1 is alleged to have been divorced in 1954 by a decree of divorce of the High Court at Madras. It is alleged that on January 7, 1980 by a consent decree passed in Title Suit No. 1940 of 1979, the said premises No. 2, Park Lane, Calcutta was partitioned by metes and bounds between the appellants. Thereafter, by an order dated September 13, 1980 of the Corporation of Calcutta the name of the appellant No. 2 in respect of her half share in the said premises was mutated. The case of the appellants is that there are three rooms in the said premises measuring 30' x 30' and there is an office accommodation of the appellant No. 1. A whole time durwan of the appellant No. 1 has been residing in one of the said rooms.
( 3 ) ON May 19, 1978, a negotiation started between the appellant No. 1 and the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited for the sale of the said premises No. 2, Park Lane, Calcutta. After the price was settled, a draft agreement for sale was prepared and sent by the appellant No. 1 to the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation, but the sale was not effected. It is alleged that on account of the adamant attitude of the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation, the sale did not materialise.
( 4 ) IT appears that a notification dated June 20, 1979 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisition of the land and building of the said premises No. 2, Park Lane, Calcutta for the construction of a house for an institution known as "urdu Academy". The appellants filed an objection in writing under Section 5a of the Land Acquisition Act, and they were also heard. It has been specifically averred in the writ petition that the appellants were not aware of the final fate of the land acquisition proceedings, namely, whether the same were abandoned or cancelled. It is alleged that no information either from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector or from the Deputy Secretary, Land and Land Revenue Department has ever been communicated to the appellant No. 1.
( 5 ) IT is the case of the appellants that during the pendency of the said Land acquisition proceedings the impugned order of requisition dated October 16, 1981 was passed by the First Land Acquisition Collector, under Section 3 (1) of the Act requisitioning the land with building measuring 0. 2627 acre comprised in the said premises No. 2, Park Lane, Calcutta "for a public purpose for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community by the establishment of a power Distribution System", it is alleged that the said order under Section 3 (1) of the Act was not served on the appellants, The case of the appellants is that the appellant No. 1 was in Madras from October 7, 1981 to October 22, 1981, for medical check-up. He received an information from his durwan through a telegram dated October 19, 1981. Upon receipt of the information, the appellant No. 1 returned from Madras on October 22, 1981 and came to know for the first time from his durwan, Sitaram Singh that "an order had been handed over on the Ration Shop on or about October 16, 198l at 8 P. M. ", and that on October 17, 1981 some persons, claiming themselves to be the employees of the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation had broken open the lock of the main gate of the said pr
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
