Back
High Court Of Calcutta
M. G. MUKHERJI, NRIPENDRA KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
Shefali Ray - Respondent
APPEAL 718 Of 1991
Decided On : 09/20/1994
LAND ACQUISITION - [WEST BENGAL LAND (REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION) ACT, 1948 (WEST BENGAL ACT II OF 1948)] - [SECTIONS 3(1), 3(2)] - [PURPOSE OF REQUISITION - VALIDITY OF SERVICE OF NOTICE] - Purpose of requisition must be within the scope and ambit of S. 3(1) of the Act - Service of notice on the owner is imperative under S. 3(2) of the Act - Notice must be directed in the name of the owner - Service on caretaker or durwan is valid only if the notice is addressed to the owner.
Fact of the Case:
The State of West Bengal requisitioned a property for the purpose of providing office accommodation to different offices under the Public Works (Roads) Department. The Joint Receivers and the owners of the property challenged the requisition order, arguing that the purpose was not within the scope of S. 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (West Bengal Act II of 1948) and that the notice of requisition was not properly served on the owners.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the purpose of requisition was within the scope and ambit of S. 3(1) of the Act, relying on the decision in Mahamaya Roy Chowdhury v. L. A. Collector. However, the court found that the notice of requisition was not properly served on the owners, as it was not addressed in their name. The court relied on several precedents to hold that service of notice on the owner is imperative under S. 3(2) of the Act and that the notice must be directed in the name of the owner.
Issues: 1. Whether the purpose of requisition was within the scope and ambit of S. 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948? 2. Whether the notice of requisition was properly served on the owners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the purpose of requisition was within the scope and ambit of S. 3(1) of the Act, relying on the decision in Mahamaya Roy Chowdhury v. L. A. Collector. The court reasoned that the purpose of maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community includes providing office accommodation to different offices under the Public Works (Roads) Department. 2. The court held that the notice of requisition was not properly served on the owners, as it was not addressed in their name. The court relied on several precedents to hold that service of notice on the owner is imperative under S. 3(2) of the Act and that the notice must be directed in the name of the owner.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals in part. The finding of the Trial Court that the purpose mentioned in the order of requisition is outside the scope and ambit of S. 3 of Act II of 1948 was overruled and set aside. The appeal was dismissed so far as it relates to the question of notice upon the owners. However, this will not preclude the appellants State of West Bengal and other Government appellants from proceeding afresh against the respondents writ petitioners by way of a requisition followed by acquisition, if any, in accordance with law.
( 1 ) BY these two appeals the State of West Bengal has challenged the order and/or judgment dated 27/09/1991 passed by Altamas Kabir, J, by which the learned Judge by a common judgment disposed of Matters Nos. 1261 of 1991 and 1281 of 1991 allowing the two writ applications filed by the respective writ petitioners after setting aside the impugned order of requisition, being No. 3 of 1991 dated 25/02/1991 passed under sub-sec. (1) of S. 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948) by respondent No. 2.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the learned Judge the purpose mentioned in the order is outside the scope and ambit of sub-sec. (1) of S. 3 of Act II of 1948.
( 3 ) AS by a single judgment both Matters Nos. 1261 of 1991 and 1281 of 1991 have been disposed of and as the appeals have been preferred being Appeals Nos. 718 of 1991 and 719 of 1991 against the said common judgment, both the appeals were taken up for hearing together and are now disposed of by this judgment.
( 4 ) THE facts as elicited from the records are as follows :-IN Appeal No. 719 of 1991, arising out of Matter No. 1281 of 1991, the writ petitioners are the owners of premises No. 57, Jatindra Mohan Avenue.
( 5 ) THE predecessors-in-interest of the writ petitioners inducted the State of West Bengal as a tenant in the building on the basis of an agreement with effect from 21/08/1961 at a montly rent of Rs. 7,000. 00 for the accommodation of Special Road Development under Development (Road) Department.
( 6 ) SOMETIME in 1968 a suit for partition and administration of the Estate of Rai Bahadur Ganendra Krishna Roy was filed before this Hon'ble Court.
( 7 ) IN that suit by an order dated 10/06/1968 the petitioners in Matter No. . 1261 of 1991 were appointed as Joint Receivers over the said property namely, 57, Jatindra Mohan Avenue, Calcutta-5.
( 8 ) SOMETIME on or about 9/07/1984 the said Joint Receivers brought a suit for ejectment against the State of West Bengal from the suit premises as aforesaid being Suit No. 484 of 1984 in this Hon'ble Court.
( 9 ) ONE of the grounds for eviction was default in payment of rent.
( 10 ) THE Joint Receivers in that suit made an application under S. 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and ultimately the defence of the defendants against delivery of possession was struck out.
( 11 ) BY an order of the Court dated 20/03/1985 the suit was ultimately decreed on 19/05/1986 directing delivery of khas possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs. Direction was also given for payment of the arrears of Rs. 77,000. 00 -.
( 12 ) THE Joint Receivers levied that decree in execution and the execution application was allowed by this Hon'ble Court. The matter travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the instance of the State of West Bengal upon a special leave petition under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India which was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
( 13 ) THEREAFTER, the State of West Bengal instituted a suit before this Hon'ble Court being Suit No. 536 of 1990 (State of West Bengal v. Dipak Basu, Advocate) wherein it has been contended that the decree passed on 19/05/1986 is void and is a nullity. Prayer of injunction against Joint Receivers for restraining them from executing the decree was made.
( 14 ) THE Hon'ble Court by its order dated 16/07/1990 granted three months' time to the State of West Bengal to vacate the suit property.
( 15 ) THEREAFTER, on 13/09/1990, the State of West Bengal made an application in Suit No. 1393 of 1968 and the Hon'ble Justice Suhas Chandra Sen (as His Lordship then was) by order dated 25/02/1991 granted liberty to the State of West Bengal to requisition and acquire the said premises No. 57, Jatindra Mohan Avenue, Calcutta-5 in accordance with law.
( 16 ) ON 25/02/1991 Order No. 3 of 1991 was issued by the first Land Acquisition Collector purporting to requisition the land at the said premises.
( 17 ) ON 26/02/1
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
