Back
1999 Supreme(Cal) 625
High Court Of Calcutta
RUMA PAL, S. N. BHATTACHARJEE
HIRA GIRDHARDAS MANSATA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. 2051 Of 1981
Decided On : 12/07/1999
The requirements for service of notice under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the need for specifying the public purpose with sufficient particularity in a notification under section 4(1).
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 4 - Notification under section 4 - Service of notice - Public purpose - Interpretation and application.
Fact of the Case:
A writ petition was filed challenging a notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the grounds that it was not served in accordance with section 4(1) and that the public purpose was not specified.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notification was not served in accordance with section 4(1) as it was not served at a convenient place in the locality and that the public purpose was not specified with sufficient particularity.
Issues: 1. Whether the notification was served in accordance with section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 2. Whether the public purpose was specified with sufficient particularity?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 requires that public notice of the substance of a notification under section 4 be given at convenient places in the locality. The court held that the notification in this case was not served at a convenient place in the locality because it was not served at a public or conspicuous place and because it was not served at more than one such place. 2. The court held that the public purpose was not specified with sufficient particularity because the notification merely stated that the land was being acquired for the construction of "office-cum-residential buildings". The court held that this was not sufficient to enable the persons concerned to object effectively to the acquisition of the land under section 5a of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the single judge. The court also allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notification under section 4(1) and all proceedings consequent thereto.
( 1 ) THE appeal had been preferred from a judgment and order dated 6th April 1994 dismissing the writ application in which the writ petitioner challenged a notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
( 2 ) ALTHOUGH several points had been raised by the appellant before the learned single Judge only two were pressed in appeal. The first was that the impugned notification had not been served in terms of section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (referred to as the Act) and the second that the impugned notification was defective, in that the public purpose had not been specified.
( 3 ) THE notification under section 4 is dated 31st July 1981. The land sought to be acquired was 0. 0650 Hectare (0. 1607 of an acre) of premises No. 10, Middleton Street, Calcutta (referred to as the premises ). The notification said that the land was likely to be needed "for a public purpose namely for the purpose of construction of office cum residential buildings" at the public expense.
( 4 ) THERE is an endorsement on the office copy of the notification to the following effect:"copy of this notification is hereby forwarded for publication at the following places for the General Information of the Public. 1. The office notice board Shri Harinarayan Dutta 4. 12. 81 2. SPOT (SPOT NOTICE) Md. Ismail, Bawurchi 4. 12. 81 3. To, The Collector, 24-Parganas, Calcutta Harinath Das 4. The Collector Stamps-Revenue, Calcutta, 11, Netaji Shibnarayan Karmakar subhas Road, Calcutta. The Commission Corporation of Calcutta, 5, S. N. Bhola Dhar banerjee Road, Calcutta for favour of displaying on his NOTICE BOARD for the general information of the public. The Officer-in-charge, Park Street Police Station park St. , Calcutta, for favour of displaying on it's notice Board for the general information of the public. Sd/- illegible dt. 4. 12. 81"
( 5 ) BELOW this is the signature of the First Land Acquisition Collector dated 4. 12. 81. Below that is an endorsement in Bengali, which is signed by one Tarak Nath Dey on 7. 12. 81, the approximate translation of which is"4. 12. 81 a copy of notice no. 1 was hung on the Notice Board of our office in the presence of an employee of the office. Later on that date notice no. 2 was served by affixation on the door of the premises in the presence of the named person. Later on the same date notices 4, 5 and 6 were served by affixation on the notice board of the three offices in the presence of the named persons. The above named statement is true to my knowledge. "
( 6 ) THE statement was affirmed before the Land Acquisition Collector on 9. 12. 81.
( 7 ) ON the same date copies of the notice were issued to: (1)gour Chandra Pal, Shri Bata Krishto Dham 77, Beniatolla St. , Calcutta. (2)shri G. B. Bansata, 32, Lenin Sarani. (3) Occupier's: H. K. Kanarama and Others.
( 8 ) THE report in support of this notice has also been signed by Tarak Dey on 8. 12. 81. The report is in Bengali and appears to have been affirmed on 9. 12. 81 before the Land Acquisition Collector. This report mentions that the owner, Gour Chandra Pal is dead. Under the circumstances, "being unable to serve in the office returned it". As far as notice no. 2 is concerned, it says:"on going to the premises mentioned in the notice dated 04. 12. 81 at 32, Lenin Sarani, not finding anyone mentioned in the notice there, went to 32a, Lenin Sarani, 1st floor, on enquiry about owner of Notice No. 2, came to know that there is an office of one owner. On going inside the office and giving the notice to an employee, he having read the notice took the notice inside the office. Then coming back said that Bada Babu and Law Clerk are reading it, saying so, he made me sit. But getting the notice typed, he said the person in whose name the notice is, is not present. In these circumstances instead of bringing back the Notice which was read and typed, I served the notice by hanging it on the main entrance of the office in the presence of Paresh Dha
