The power of requisition under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 can only be exercised for a temporary purpose and for the specific purposes mentioned in the Act. The construction of Government buildings for Government offices and residential quarters is not a supply or service essential to the life of the community within the meaning of the Act.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated March 20, 1992, passed by the learned trial Judge rejecting the writ application.

( 2 ) THE subject matter of challenge in the writ application was an order of requisition dated May 5, 1986, passed under section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. The property was sought to be requisitioned for "the purpose of maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community, viz. , for construction of Government building for Government Offices and residential quarters to the requisitioned land described in the schedule below". The land which was sought to be requisitioned was more or less 0. 1347 hectares or 0. 3329 acres comprising premises No. 6, Camac Street (portion), Calcutta, The total land area of the premises in one bigha 6 cattahs 10 chattaks 68 sq. ft. , and that area of land under requisition appears to be one-third of an acre. In the order of requisition, the particular portion of the property sought to be requisitioned has not been disclosed.

( 3 ) THE appellants case is that the appellant Nos. 1 to 8 are the owners of the premises No. 6, Camac Street, and the appellant Nos. 1 to 8 entered into an agreement with the appellant No. 9, by which the appellant Nos. 1 to 8 agreed to sell the property to the appellant No. 9 in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement. After the agreement was made, the possession of the property was transferred to the appellant No. 9. A portion of the said building was originally let out to the State Planning Board at a monthly rent of Rs. 6000/-, and that the possession of the entire premises excluding the area under the possession of the State Planning remained with the planning Board, the respondent No. 4 herein. In the instant case, it appears that the appellant No. 9, by the letter dated January 24, 1986, submitted certain proposals for the consideration of the Government of the State of West Bengal. The said proposals were as follows :-"a. (I) The existing area under the tenancy of the State Planning Board was to be given free without any cost to the State Planning Board in the new construction whereby the State Planning Board was to become the absolute owner of the said property. (ii) If any extra space is required by the State Planning Board, the excess area was offered to be sold at the fair and reasonable price to be determined in consolation with the Land Acquisition Collector. B. Alternatively, an equivalent area under the tenancy was offered at the existing rent and further area if required, at the fair rent to be determined in consultation with the Land Acquisition Collector. "

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, it appears, that, discussions were held between the learned Advocates of the parties. But ultimately the said proposal was not finalised. Under such circumstances, the order of requisition was issued on May 5, 1986. The matter was heard on affidavit by the learned trial Judge and the learned trial Judge had held that the requisition of the property was not for the purpose which was definitely a public purpose, and that it was further held by the learned trial Judge in his judgment that the service by Government to the people in a democratic country like India is essential to the life of the community and if any other construction is given such an expression, that would be contrary to the legislative intent and/or the purpose. It was further held by the learned trial Judge that the purpose, whether permanent or temporary one, was wholly immaterial under the law inasmuch as after the property is requisitioned under section 3 of the said Act, if it was found that the property was required for a permanent purpose, in that event the same may be acquired under section 4 of the said Act. No affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the State controverting any of the allegations made in the petition and that the allegations made in the writ