High Court Of Calcutta
M. N. Roy, Dilip Kumar Basu
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - Appellant
Versus
HIMAL ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LTD. - Respondent
F. M. A. T. 1158 Of 1986
Decided On : 03/02/1987
WEST BENGAL PREMISES REQUISITION AND CONTROL (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1947 - Requisition of premises - Validity - Service of notice - Public purpose - Interpretation of relevant provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The owners of a requisitioned property challenged the requisition order issued under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947, claiming that they were not properly served with the notice and that the public purpose for requisition was not specified.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the service of notice on the wrong person was an irregularity but not fatal to the requisition order. The Court also held that the public purpose need not be specifically mentioned in the requisition order, as the opinion of the government on the existence of public purpose is final.
Issues: 1. Whether the service of notice on the wrong person invalidated the requisition order? 2. Whether the public purpose for requisition needed to be specifically mentioned in the requisition order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the service of notice on the wrong person was an irregularity but not fatal to the requisition order. The Court relied on the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act, which states that the order shall be served on the landlord and where it relates to premises let out to a tenant, also on such tenant. The Court held that the purpose of this provision is to ensure that the person in occupation of the premises is aware of the requisition order, and that this purpose was fulfilled even though the notice was served on the wrong person. 2. The Court held that the public purpose for requisition need not be specifically mentioned in the requisition order. The Court relied on the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act, which states that the State Government may requisition any premises "whenever it appears to the State Government that any premises in any locality are needed or are likely to be needed for any public purpose." The Court held that this provision gives the State Government wide discretion to determine what constitutes a public purpose, and that this discretion is not subject to judicial review.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the requisition order.
( 1 ) AN order of requisition of the land and buildings with furnitures In R. S. Plot No. 396, Mouza-Chandhaghar. J. L. No. 44, P. S. Barasat 24-Parganas (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) as issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), was challenged in this Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the owners of the said premises, who are M/s. Himal Enterprises (Private) Ltd. a Company incorporated under the Sikkim Companies Act and also by one of their Directors Mrs. Sova Shresthe. The writ petitioners are the Respondents in this Appeal and the Civil Order No. 4112 (W) 1986, in which the requisition under the said Act were challenged on being disposed of in favour of the petitioners therein, this Appeal was presented by the Respondent State of West Bengal and their authorities, on July, 198g.
( 2 ) THE petitioners in the writ petition claimed that the Company as mentioned above, at all material times was and still is the owner of the said premises and they acquired the same by purchase on January 16, 1976 from the erstwhile owners. It was also their case that after such purchase the Company, i. e. , the petitioner No. 1 in the writ proceedings, spent a huge sum of money for the purpose of renovation, with the object that their Directors could stay therein. According to the petitioners, there was and has been a brick built one storied building (Bungalow) containing a total area of 24 cottahas (. 39 acres) and it was also their case that very recently the Bungalow in question, was thoroughly repaired and renovated on spending a considerable amount, apart from that, they have also claimed to have spent large sums of money for having necessary furnitures and fixtures and other decorative items and they at all material times web and still are kept in the Bungalow in question. It was also the case of the petitioners that they have further got a telephone connection installed in the Bungalow and the said telephone connection, at the time of requisition of the said premises, was operative. The petitioners have further stated that after such acquiring of the said premises, they have paid all taxes, rates, electric charges and charges for telephone connection, regularly.
( 3 ) IT was also the case of the petitioners that on March 3, 1986, when one of the Directors of the petitioner No. 1, was present at the said premises but were at
Calcutta, some persons claiming themselves to be the representatives of the office of the Collector, North 24-Parganas, came at the office of the petitioner No. 1, at 13, Lowdown Street, Calcutta at about 5. 30 p. m. and handed over a purported order which was said to have been issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act. The order was dated March 1, 1986 and the number of the same was 5/86. The requisition order will be hearafter referred to as the said order and by the said the Deputy Secretary of the Government of West Bengal requisitioned the said premises, claiming the same to be needed for a public purpose. The said order has been disclosed as Annexure "a" to the writ petition and on a reference to the same it would appear that the land and buildings with furniture in R. S. Plot No. 396 having an area of more or less 0. 35 acres of Mouza Chandhaghar, J. L. No. 44, P. S. Barasat, District-24 Parganas was sought to be requisitioned and the same was sought to be served on Mr. B. K. Sherestha with a request to deliver possession of the said premises to the representative, one Shri J. Mukherjee, Head Surveyor, who was stated to be the representative of the Office of the Collector concerned, on March 3, 1986 at 4-45 p. m.
( 4 ) THE petitioners have claimed and contended that in the said order there was no actual specification of the purposes for which the said premises were required by the Government and in th
Prem Jivan Jaitha v. State of West Bengal and Ors.
State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Pulin Krishna Roy Estate (P) Ltd. and Anr.
A.C.Mohamed and Anr. v. Sailendra Nath Mitra
H.D. Vera v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Mrs.Ambujam Menon and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Madan Gopal Agarwal v. District Magistrate, Allahabad and Ors.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.